PURPOSE: Combined PET/MRI studies receive increasing attention, as their combination allows deeper insight into disease progression. We evaluated a novel 1 T benchtop MRI scanner (1T-MRI) for its use in sequential PET/MRI studies. PROCEDURES: Phantom studies were performed, addressing the attenuation caused by the MRI coils. For in vivo studies, PET/MRI data acquired with the 1T-MRI were compared with data using a conventional small animal high-field MRI (7T-MRI) in combination with the same PET scanner. RESULTS: Phantom and in vivo measurements show that the animal beds have no negative impact on the PET scanner performance compared to the 7T-MRI animal bed. Representative images of various animal studies are shown, indicating a wide field for sequential PET-benchtop MRI applications. CONCLUSION: Phantom and in vivo data indicate that sequential PET/MRI studies with this novel setup are comparable to sequential PET/MRI studies using a 7T-MRI in combination with a dedicated PET scanner.
PURPOSE: Combined PET/MRI studies receive increasing attention, as their combination allows deeper insight into disease progression. We evaluated a novel 1 T benchtop MRI scanner (1T-MRI) for its use in sequential PET/MRI studies. PROCEDURES: Phantom studies were performed, addressing the attenuation caused by the MRI coils. For in vivo studies, PET/MRI data acquired with the 1T-MRI were compared with data using a conventional small animal high-field MRI (7T-MRI) in combination with the same PET scanner. RESULTS: Phantom and in vivo measurements show that the animal beds have no negative impact on the PET scanner performance compared to the 7T-MRI animal bed. Representative images of various animal studies are shown, indicating a wide field for sequential PET-benchtop MRI applications. CONCLUSION: Phantom and in vivo data indicate that sequential PET/MRI studies with this novel setup are comparable to sequential PET/MRI studies using a 7T-MRI in combination with a dedicated PET scanner.
Authors: Julia G Mannheim; Martin S Judenhofer; Andreas Schmid; Julia Tillmanns; Detlef Stiller; Vesna Sossi; Bernd J Pichler Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Derek Zieker; Ingmar Königsrainer; Jürgen Weinreich; Stefan Beckert; Jörg Glatzle; Kay Nieselt; Sarah Bühler; Markus Löffler; Jochen Gaedcke; Hinnak Northoff; Julia G Mannheim; Stefan Wiehr; Bernd J Pichler; Claus von Weyhern; Björn L D M Brücher; Alfred Königsrainer Journal: Cell Physiol Biochem Date: 2010-08-24
Authors: Manfred Kneilling; Lothar Hültner; Bernd J Pichler; Reinhard Mailhammer; Lars Morawietz; Samuel Solomon; Martin Eichner; Joseph Sabatino; Tilo Biedermann; Veit Krenn; Wolfgang A Weber; Harald Illges; Roland Haubner; Martin Röcken Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-06
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Patrick Ledden; Alexander V Stolin; Bob Hou; Ganghadar Jaliparthi; Peter F Martone Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-09-08
Authors: Connor A Wathen; Nathan Foje; Tony van Avermaete; Bernadette Miramontes; Sarah E Chapaman; Todd A Sasser; Raghuraman Kannan; Steven Gerstler; W Matthew Leevy Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 3.576