Philip M Robson1, Ananth J Madhuranthakam2, Martin P Smith3, Maryellen R M Sun3, Weiying Dai3, Neil M Rofsky2, Ivan Pedrosa2, David C Alsop3. 1. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, AN-226, Boston, MA 02215. Electronic address: pmrobson98@gmail.com. 2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, AN-226, Boston, MA 02215.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Renal perfusion measurements using noninvasive arterial spin-labeled (ASL) magnetic resonance imaging techniques are gaining interest. Currently, focus has been on perfusion in the context of renal transplant. Our objectives were to explore the use of ASL in patients with renal cancer, and to evaluate three-dimensional (3D) fast spin echo (FSE) acquisition, a robust volumetric imaging method for abdominal applications. We evaluate 3D ASL perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in the kidneys compared to two-dimensional (2D) ASL in patients and healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Isotropic resolution (2.6 × 2.6 × 2.8 mm(3)) 3D ASL using segmented FSE was compared to 2D single-shot FSE. ASL used pseudo-continuous labeling, suppression of background signal, and synchronized breathing. Quantitative perfusion values and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were compared between 3D and 2D ASL in four healthy volunteers and semiquantitative assessments were made by four radiologists in four patients with known renal masses (primary renal cell carcinoma). RESULTS: Renal cortex perfusion in healthy subjects was 284 ± 21 mL/100 g/min, with test-retest repeatability of 8.8%. No significant differences were found between the quantitative perfusion value and SNR in volunteers between 3D ASL and 2D ASL, or in 3D ASL with synchronized or free breathing. In patients, semiquantitative assessment by radiologists showed no significant difference in image quality between 2D ASL and 3D ASL. In one case, 2D ASL missed a high perfusion focus in a mass that was seen by 3D ASL. CONCLUSIONS: 3D ASL renal perfusion imaging provides isotropic-resolution images, with comparable quantitative perfusion values and image SNR in similar imaging time to single-slice 2D ASL.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Renal perfusion measurements using noninvasive arterial spin-labeled (ASL) magnetic resonance imaging techniques are gaining interest. Currently, focus has been on perfusion in the context of renal transplant. Our objectives were to explore the use of ASL in patients with renal cancer, and to evaluate three-dimensional (3D) fast spin echo (FSE) acquisition, a robust volumetric imaging method for abdominal applications. We evaluate 3D ASL perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in the kidneys compared to two-dimensional (2D) ASL in patients and healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Isotropic resolution (2.6 × 2.6 × 2.8 mm(3)) 3D ASL using segmented FSE was compared to 2D single-shot FSE. ASL used pseudo-continuous labeling, suppression of background signal, and synchronized breathing. Quantitative perfusion values and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were compared between 3D and 2D ASL in four healthy volunteers and semiquantitative assessments were made by four radiologists in four patients with known renal masses (primary renal cell carcinoma). RESULTS: Renal cortex perfusion in healthy subjects was 284 ± 21 mL/100 g/min, with test-retest repeatability of 8.8%. No significant differences were found between the quantitative perfusion value and SNR in volunteers between 3D ASL and 2D ASL, or in 3D ASL with synchronized or free breathing. In patients, semiquantitative assessment by radiologists showed no significant difference in image quality between 2D ASL and 3D ASL. In one case, 2D ASL missed a high perfusion focus in a mass that was seen by 3D ASL. CONCLUSIONS: 3D ASL renal perfusion imaging provides isotropic-resolution images, with comparable quantitative perfusion values and image SNR in similar imaging time to single-slice 2D ASL.
Authors: Marica Cutajar; David L Thomas; Tina Banks; Christopher A Clark; Xavier Golay; Isky Gordon Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Ivan Pedrosa; Khashayar Rafatzand; Philip Robson; Andrew A Wagner; Michael B Atkins; Neil M Rofsky; David C Alsop Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nathan S Artz; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Andrew L Wentland; Thomas M Grist; Songwon Seo; Arjang Djamali; Sean B Fain Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Nathan S Artz; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Andrew L Wentland; Arjang Djamali; Thomas M Grist; Songwon Seo; Sean B Fain Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Philip M Robson; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Weiying Dai; Ivan Pedrosa; Neil M Rofsky; David C Alsop Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Rachel Schor-Bardach; David C Alsop; Ivan Pedrosa; Stephanie A Solazzo; Xiaoen Wang; Robert P Marquis; Michael B Atkins; Meredith Regan; Sabina Signoretti; Robert E Lenkinski; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joshua S Greer; Xinzeng Wang; Yiming Wang; Marco C Pinho; Joseph A Maldjian; Ivan Pedrosa; Ananth J Madhuranthakam Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-06-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Heling Zhou; Olivier Belzile; Zhang Zhang; Jo Wagner; Chul Ahn; James A Richardson; Debabrata Saha; Rolf A Brekken; Ralph P Mason Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Isabell K Bones; Anita A Harteveld; Suzanne L Franklin; Matthias J P van Osch; Jeroen Hendrikse; Chrit T W Moonen; Clemens Bos; Marijn van Stralen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Aghogho Odudu; Fabio Nery; Anita A Harteveld; Roger G Evans; Douglas Pendse; Charlotte E Buchanan; Susan T Francis; María A Fernández-Seara Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Hao Song; Dan Ruan; Wenyang Liu; V Andrew Stenger; Rolf Pohmann; Maria A Fernández-Seara; Tejas Nair; Sungkyu Jung; Jingqin Luo; Yuichi Motai; Jingfei Ma; John D Hazle; H Michael Gach Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Frank G Zöllner; Amira Šerifović-Trbalić; Gordian Kabelitz; Marek Kociński; Andrzej Materka; Peter Rogelj Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Fabio Nery; Charlotte E Buchanan; Anita A Harteveld; Aghogho Odudu; Octavia Bane; Eleanor F Cox; Katja Derlin; H Michael Gach; Xavier Golay; Marcel Gutberlet; Christoffer Laustsen; Alexandra Ljimani; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Ivan Pedrosa; Pottumarthi V Prasad; Philip M Robson; Kanishka Sharma; Steven Sourbron; Manuel Taso; David L Thomas; Danny J J Wang; Jeff L Zhang; David C Alsop; Sean B Fain; Susan T Francis; María A Fernández-Seara Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 2.533