Literature DB >> 28895045

Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on proton density fat fraction using the six-echo Dixon method in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Tatsuya Hayashi1, Kei Fukuzawa2, Hiroshi Kondo3, Hiroshi Onodera4, Shuji Toyotaka4, Rie Tojo4, Shimpei Yano4, Masakatsu Tano2, Tosiaki Miyati5, Jun'ichi Kotoku6, Takahide Okamoto6, Keiko Toyoda3, Hiroshi Oba3.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether disodium gadoxetate (Gd-EOB-DTPA) affects proton density fat fractions (PDFFs) during use of the multiecho Dixon (meDixon) method in phantom and simulation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at 3 T. Fat-water phantoms comprising vegetable fat-water emulsions with varying fat volume percentages (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50) and Gd-EOB-DTPA concentrations (0 and 0.4 mM) were prepared. Phantoms without Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as precontrast, and those with Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as postcontrast. All phantoms were scanned with a 3 T MRI system using the meDixon method, and precontrast and postcontrast PDFFs were calculated. Simulated pre and postcontrast PDFFs in the liver were calculated using a theoretical formula. The relationship between PDFFs measured in the pre and postcontrast phantoms was evaluated using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. The regression analysis comparing the pre and postcontrast PDFFs yielded a slope of 0.77 (P < 0.001). The PDFFs on the postcontrast phantom were smaller than those on the precontrast phantom. The mean difference between the PDFFs on the pre and postcontrast phantoms was 6.12% (95% confidence interval 3.13 to 9.10%; limits of agreement -0.88 to 13.11%). The simulated PDFF on the postcontrast phantom was smaller than that on the precontrast phantom. We demonstrated that the PDFF measured using the meDixon was smaller on postcontrast than on precontrast at 3 T, if a low flip angle was used. This tendency was also seen in the simulation study results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fat; Gd-EOB-DTPA; Liver; Magnetic resonance imaging; Phantom; Quantification

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28895045     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-017-0420-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  20 in total

Review 1.  Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Paul Angulo
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-18       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results.

Authors:  Cedric M J de Bazelaire; Guillaume D Duhamel; Neil M Rofsky; David C Alsop
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Fat quantification with IDEAL gradient echo imaging: correction of bias from T(1) and noise.

Authors:  Chia-Ying Liu; Charles A McKenzie; Huanzhou Yu; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Hepatic fat quantification using the two-point Dixon method and fat color maps based on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score.

Authors:  Tatsuya Hayashi; Satoshi Saitoh; Junji Takahashi; Yoshinori Tsuji; Kenji Ikeda; Masahiro Kobayashi; Yusuke Kawamura; Takeshi Fujii; Masafumi Inoue; Tosiaki Miyati; Hiromitsu Kumada
Journal:  Hepatol Res       Date:  2016-07-31       Impact factor: 4.288

5.  Simple proton spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  W T Dixon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Survival, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma in obesity-related cryptogenic cirrhosis.

Authors:  Vlad Ratziu; Luminita Bonyhay; Vincent Di Martino; Frederic Charlotte; Lucas Cavallaro; Marie-Hélène Sayegh-Tainturier; Philippe Giral; André Grimaldi; Pierre Opolon; Thierry Poynard
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 17.425

7.  Liver fat quantification using a multi-step adaptive fitting approach with multi-echo GRE imaging.

Authors:  Xiaodong Zhong; Marcel D Nickel; Stephan A R Kannengiesser; Brian M Dale; Berthold Kiefer; Mustafa R Bashir
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  Effects of intravenous gadolinium administration and flip angle on the assessment of liver fat signal fraction with opposed-phase and in-phase imaging.

Authors:  Takeshi Yokoo; Julie M Collins; Robert F Hanna; Mark Bydder; Michael S Middleton; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: validation in a fat-water-SPIO phantom.

Authors:  Catherine D G Hines; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Fatty tissue on opposed-phase MR images: paradoxical suppression of signal intensity by paramagnetic contrast agents.

Authors:  D G Mitchell; A H Stolpen; E S Siegelman; L Bolinger; E K Outwater
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on T1 dependence of the proton density fat fraction using magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Authors:  Tatsuya Hayashi; Kei Fukuzawa; Hiroshi Kondo; Hiroshi Onodera; Rie Tojo; Shimpei Yano; Tosiaki Miyati; Jun'ichi Kotoku; Takahide Okamoto; Keiko Toyoda; Hiroshi Oba
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2018-06-01

2.  Fat-Water Phantoms for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Validation: A Flexible and Scalable Protocol.

Authors:  Emily C Bush; Aliya Gifford; Crystal L Coolbaugh; Theodore F Towse; Bruce M Damon; E Brian Welch
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 1.355

3.  A comparison of emulsifiers for the formation of oil-in-water emulsions: stability of the emulsions within 9 h after production and MR signal properties.

Authors:  Victor Fritz; Petros Martirosian; Jürgen Machann; Rolf Daniels; Fritz Schick
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 2.533

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.