Mu He1, Scott H Robertson2, S Sivaram Kaushik3, Matthew S Freeman2, Rohan S Virgincar3, John Davies4, Jane Stiles4, William M Foster4, H Page McAdams5, Bastiaan Driehuys6. 1. Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Medicine Pulmonary, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Medicine Pulmonary, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: bastiaan.driehuys@duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of hyperpolarized (129)Xe dose on image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and ventilation defect conspicuity on both multi-slice gradient echo and isotropic 3D-radially acquired ventilation MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten non-smoking older subjects (ages 60.8±7.9years) underwent hyperpolarized (HP) (129)Xe ventilation MRI using both GRE and 3D-radial acquisitions, each tested using a 71ml (high) and 24ml (low) dose equivalent (DE) of fully polarized, fully enriched (129)Xe. For all images SNR and ventilation defect percentage (VDP) were calculated. RESULTS: Normalized SNR (SNRn), obtained by dividing SNR by voxel volume and dose was higher for high-DE GRE acquisitions (SNRn=1.9±0.8ml(-2)) than low-DE GRE scans (SNRn=0.8±0.2ml(-2)). Radially acquired images exhibited a more consistent, albeit lower SNRn (High-DE: SNRn=0.5±0.1ml(-2), low-DE: SNRn=0.5±0.2ml(-2)). VDP was indistinguishable across all scans. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that images acquired using the high-DE GRE sequence provided the highest SNRn, which was in agreement with previous reports in the literature. 3D-radial images had lower SNRn, but have advantages for visual display, monitoring magnetization dynamics, and visualizing physiological gradients. By evaluating normalized SNR in the context of dose-equivalent formalism, it should be possible to predict (129)Xe dose requirements and quantify the benefits of more efficient transmit/receive coils, field strengths, and pulse sequences.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of hyperpolarized (129)Xe dose on image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and ventilation defect conspicuity on both multi-slice gradient echo and isotropic 3D-radially acquired ventilation MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten non-smoking older subjects (ages 60.8±7.9years) underwent hyperpolarized (HP) (129)Xe ventilation MRI using both GRE and 3D-radial acquisitions, each tested using a 71ml (high) and 24ml (low) dose equivalent (DE) of fully polarized, fully enriched (129)Xe. For all images SNR and ventilation defect percentage (VDP) were calculated. RESULTS: Normalized SNR (SNRn), obtained by dividing SNR by voxel volume and dose was higher for high-DE GRE acquisitions (SNRn=1.9±0.8ml(-2)) than low-DE GRE scans (SNRn=0.8±0.2ml(-2)). Radially acquired images exhibited a more consistent, albeit lower SNRn (High-DE: SNRn=0.5±0.1ml(-2), low-DE: SNRn=0.5±0.2ml(-2)). VDP was indistinguishable across all scans. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that images acquired using the high-DE GRE sequence provided the highest SNRn, which was in agreement with previous reports in the literature. 3D-radial images had lower SNRn, but have advantages for visual display, monitoring magnetization dynamics, and visualizing physiological gradients. By evaluating normalized SNR in the context of dose-equivalent formalism, it should be possible to predict (129)Xe dose requirements and quantify the benefits of more efficient transmit/receive coils, field strengths, and pulse sequences.
Authors: Xiaojun Xu; Graham Norquay; Steven R Parnell; Martin H Deppe; Salma Ajraoui; Ralph Hashoian; Helen Marshall; Paul D Griffiths; Juan Parra-Robles; Jim M Wild Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: John P Mugler; Talissa A Altes; Iulian C Ruset; Isabel M Dregely; Jaime F Mata; G Wilson Miller; Stephen Ketel; Jeffrey Ketel; F William Hersman; Kai Ruppert Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mu He; S Sivaram Kaushik; Scott H Robertson; Matthew S Freeman; Rohan S Virgincar; H Page McAdams; Bastiaan Driehuys Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Nicholas J Tustison; Brian B Avants; Philip A Cook; Yuanjie Zheng; Alexander Egan; Paul A Yushkevich; James C Gee Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Kun Qing; Kai Ruppert; Yun Jiang; Jaime F Mata; G Wilson Miller; Y Michael Shim; Chengbo Wang; Iulian C Ruset; F William Hersman; Talissa A Altes; John P Mugler Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Samuel Patz; Iga Muradian; Mirko I Hrovat; Iulian C Ruset; George Topulos; Silviu D Covrig; Eric Frederick; Hiroto Hatabu; F W Hersman; James P Butler Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Isabel Dregely; Iulian C Ruset; Graham Wiggins; Azma Mareyam; John P Mugler; Talissa A Altes; Craig Meyer; Kai Ruppert; Lawrence L Wald; F William Hersman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Zackary I Cleveland; Gary P Cofer; Gregory Metz; Denise Beaver; John Nouls; S Sivaram Kaushik; Monica Kraft; Jan Wolber; Kevin T Kelly; H Page McAdams; Bastiaan Driehuys Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Panayiotis Nikolaou; Aaron M Coffey; Michael J Barlow; Matthew S Rosen; Boyd M Goodson; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Nuwandi M Ariyasingha; Baptiste Joalland; Hassan R Younes; Oleg G Salnikov; Nikita V Chukanov; Kirill V Kovtunov; Larisa M Kovtunova; Valerii I Bukhtiyarov; Igor V Koptyug; Juri G Gelovani; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Chemistry Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Joseph W Plummer; Kiarash Emami; Andrew Dummer; Jason C Woods; Laura L Walkup; Zackary I Cleveland Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Scott H Robertson; Rohan S Virgincar; Elianna A Bier; Mu He; Geoffrey M Schrank; Rose Marie Smigla; Craig Rackley; H Page McAdams; Bastiaan Driehuys Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lukas Ebner; Jeff Kammerman; Bastiaan Driehuys; Mark L Schiebler; Robert V Cadman; Sean B Fain Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Jennifer M Wang; Scott H Robertson; Ziyi Wang; Mu He; Rohan S Virgincar; Geoffry M Schrank; Rose Marie Smigla; Thomas G O'Riordan; John Sundy; Lukas Ebner; Craig R Rackley; Page McAdams; Bastiaan Driehuys Journal: Thorax Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Elianna A Bier; Scott H Robertson; Geoffry M Schrank; Craig Rackley; Joseph G Mammarappallil; Sudarshan Rajagopal; H Page McAdams; Bastiaan Driehuys Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.044