Yaqi Shen1, Frank L Goerner, Christopher Snyder, John N Morelli, Dapeng Hao, Daoyu Hu, Xiaoming Li, Val M Runge. 1. From the *Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China; †Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston; ‡Department of Pediatric Radiology, Texas Children's Hospital; §Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; ∥The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; ¶Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao, People's Republic of China; and #Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinics for Neuroradiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Calculation of accurate T1 relaxivity (r1) values for gadolinium-based magnetic resonance contrast agents (GBCAs) is a complex process. As such, often referenced r1 values for the GBCAs at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T are based on measurements obtained in media that are not clinically relevant, derived from only a small number of concentrations, or available for only a limited number of GBCAs. This study derives the r1 values of the 8 commercially available GBCAs in human whole blood at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight GBCAs were serially diluted in human whole blood, at 7 concentrations from 0.0625 to 4 mM. A custom-built phantom held the dilutions in air-tight cylindrical tubes maintained at 37 ± 0.5°C by a heat-circulating system. Images were acquired using inversion recovery sequences with inversion times from 30 milliseconds to 10 seconds at 1.5 T and 3 T as well as 60 milliseconds to 5 seconds at 7 T. A custom MATLAB program was used to automate signal intensity measurements from the images acquired of the phantom. SigmaPlot was used to calculate T1 relaxation times and, finally, r1. RESULTS: Measured r1 values in units of s⁻¹·mM⁻¹ at 1.5 T (3 T/7 T) were 3.9 ± 0.2 (3.4 ± 0.4/2.8 ± 0.4) for Gd-DOTA, 4.6 ± 0.2 (4.5 ± 0.3/4.2 ± 0.3) for Gd-DO3A-butrol, 4.3 ± 0.4 (3.8 ± 0.2/3.1 ± 0.4) for Gd-DTPA, 6.2 ± 0.5 (5.4 ± 0.3/4.7 ± 0.1) for Gd-BOPTA, 4.5 ± 0.1 (3.9 ± 0.2/3.7 ± 0.2) for Gd-DTPA-BMA, 4.4 ± 0.2 (4.2 ± 0.2/4.3 ± 0.2) for Gd-DTPA-BMEA, 7.2 ± 0.2 (5.5 ± 0.3/4.9 ± 0.1) for Gd-EOB-DTPA, and 4.4 ± 0.6 (3.5 ± 0.6/3.4 ± 0.1) for Gd-HP-DO3A. The agents can be stratified by relaxivity, with a significant additional dependency on field strength. CONCLUSIONS: This report quantifies, for the first time, T1 relaxivity for all 8 gadolinium chelates in common clinical use worldwide, at current relevant field strengths, in human whole blood at physiological temperature (37°C). The measured r1 values differ to a small degree from previously published values, where such comparisons exist, with the current r1 measurements being that most relevant to clinical practice. The macrocyclic agents, with the exception of Gd-DO3A-butrol, have slightly lower r1 values when compared with the 2 much less stable linear agents, Gd-DTPA-BMA and Gd-DTPA-BMEA. The 2 agents with hepatobiliary excretion, Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA, have, at 1.5 and 3 T, substantially higher r1 values than all other agents.
OBJECTIVES: Calculation of accurate T1 relaxivity (r1) values for gadolinium-based magnetic resonance contrast agents (GBCAs) is a complex process. As such, often referenced r1 values for the GBCAs at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T are based on measurements obtained in media that are not clinically relevant, derived from only a small number of concentrations, or available for only a limited number of GBCAs. This study derives the r1 values of the 8 commercially available GBCAs in human whole blood at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight GBCAs were serially diluted in human whole blood, at 7 concentrations from 0.0625 to 4 mM. A custom-built phantom held the dilutions in air-tight cylindrical tubes maintained at 37 ± 0.5°C by a heat-circulating system. Images were acquired using inversion recovery sequences with inversion times from 30 milliseconds to 10 seconds at 1.5 T and 3 T as well as 60 milliseconds to 5 seconds at 7 T. A custom MATLAB program was used to automate signal intensity measurements from the images acquired of the phantom. SigmaPlot was used to calculate T1 relaxation times and, finally, r1. RESULTS: Measured r1 values in units of s⁻¹·mM⁻¹ at 1.5 T (3 T/7 T) were 3.9 ± 0.2 (3.4 ± 0.4/2.8 ± 0.4) for Gd-DOTA, 4.6 ± 0.2 (4.5 ± 0.3/4.2 ± 0.3) for Gd-DO3A-butrol, 4.3 ± 0.4 (3.8 ± 0.2/3.1 ± 0.4) for Gd-DTPA, 6.2 ± 0.5 (5.4 ± 0.3/4.7 ± 0.1) for Gd-BOPTA, 4.5 ± 0.1 (3.9 ± 0.2/3.7 ± 0.2) for Gd-DTPA-BMA, 4.4 ± 0.2 (4.2 ± 0.2/4.3 ± 0.2) for Gd-DTPA-BMEA, 7.2 ± 0.2 (5.5 ± 0.3/4.9 ± 0.1) for Gd-EOB-DTPA, and 4.4 ± 0.6 (3.5 ± 0.6/3.4 ± 0.1) for Gd-HP-DO3A. The agents can be stratified by relaxivity, with a significant additional dependency on field strength. CONCLUSIONS: This report quantifies, for the first time, T1 relaxivity for all 8 gadolinium chelates in common clinical use worldwide, at current relevant field strengths, in human whole blood at physiological temperature (37°C). The measured r1 values differ to a small degree from previously published values, where such comparisons exist, with the current r1 measurements being that most relevant to clinical practice. The macrocyclic agents, with the exception of Gd-DO3A-butrol, have slightly lower r1 values when compared with the 2 much less stable linear agents, Gd-DTPA-BMA and Gd-DTPA-BMEA. The 2 agents with hepatobiliary excretion, Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA, have, at 1.5 and 3 T, substantially higher r1 values than all other agents.
Authors: Eric M Gale; Peter Caravan; Anil G Rao; Robert J McDonald; Matthew Winfeld; Robert J Fleck; Michael S Gee Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-04-13
Authors: J L Becker; V Patel; K J Johnson; M Guerrero; R R Klein; G F Ranvier; R P Owen; P Pawha; K Nael Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: William Crowe; Lulu Wang; Zhongwei Zhang; Jasmina Varagic; J Daniel Bourland; Michael D Chan; Amyn A Habib; Dawen Zhao Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: Philip Hoelter; Stefan Lang; Marina Weibart; Manuel Schmidt; Michael F X Knott; Tobias Engelhorn; Marco Essig; Stephan Kloska; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Pavol Szomolanyi; Martin Rohrer; Thomas Frenzel; Iris M Noebauer-Huhmann; Gregor Jost; Jan Endrikat; Siegfried Trattnig; Hubertus Pietsch Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Neil Chatterjee; Brandon C Benefield; Kathleen R Harris; Jacob U Fluckiger; Timothy Carroll; Daniel C Lee Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 4.668