Leonardo A Rivera-Rivera1, Tilman Schubert2,3, Gesine Knobloch2,4, Patrick A Turski1,2, Oliver Wieben1,2, Scott B Reeder1,2,4, Kevin M Johnson1,2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Departments of Biomedical Engineering, Medicine and Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cerebral perfusion is commonly assessed clinically with dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI using a bolus injection of gadolinium-based contrast agents, resulting in semi-quantitative values of cerebral blood volume (CBV). Steady-state imaging with ferumoxytol allows estimation of CBV with the potential for higher precision and accuracy. Prior CBV studies have focused on the signal disrupting T2* effects, but ferumoxytol also has high signal-enhancing T1 relaxivity. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare CBV estimation using T1 and T2*, with the goal of understanding the contrast mechanisms and quantitative differences. METHODS: Changes in R1 (1/T1 ) and R2* (1/ T2*) were measured after the administration of ferumoxytol using high-resolution quantitative approaches. Images were acquired at 3.0T and R1 was estimated from an ultrashort echo time variable flip angle approach, while R2* was estimated from a multiple gradient echo sequence. Twenty healthy volunteers were imaged at two doses. CBV was derived and compared from relaxometry in gray and white matter using different approaches. RESULTS: R1 measurements showed a linear dependence of blood R1 with respect to dose in large vessels, in contrast to the nonlinear dose-dependence of blood R2* estimates. In the brain parenchyma, R2* showed linear dose-dependency whereas R1 showed nonlinearity. CBV calculations based on R2* changes in tissue and ferumoxytol blood concentration estimates based on R1 relaxivity showed the lowest variability in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: CBV measurements were successfully derived using a combined approach of R1 and R2* relaxometry. Magn Reson Med 79:3072-3081, 2018.
PURPOSE: Cerebral perfusion is commonly assessed clinically with dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI using a bolus injection of gadolinium-based contrast agents, resulting in semi-quantitative values of cerebral blood volume (CBV). Steady-state imaging with ferumoxytol allows estimation of CBV with the potential for higher precision and accuracy. Prior CBV studies have focused on the signal disrupting T2* effects, but ferumoxytol also has high signal-enhancing T1 relaxivity. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare CBV estimation using T1 and T2*, with the goal of understanding the contrast mechanisms and quantitative differences. METHODS: Changes in R1 (1/T1 ) and R2* (1/ T2*) were measured after the administration of ferumoxytol using high-resolution quantitative approaches. Images were acquired at 3.0T and R1 was estimated from an ultrashort echo time variable flip angle approach, while R2* was estimated from a multiple gradient echo sequence. Twenty healthy volunteers were imaged at two doses. CBV was derived and compared from relaxometry in gray and white matter using different approaches. RESULTS: R1 measurements showed a linear dependence of blood R1 with respect to dose in large vessels, in contrast to the nonlinear dose-dependence of blood R2* estimates. In the brain parenchyma, R2* showed linear dose-dependency whereas R1 showed nonlinearity. CBV calculations based on R2* changes in tissue and ferumoxytol blood concentration estimates based on R1 relaxivity showed the lowest variability in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: CBV measurements were successfully derived using a combined approach of R1 and R2* relaxometry. Magn Reson Med 79:3072-3081, 2018.
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Lukas D Weberling; Pascal J Kieslich; Oliver Eidel; Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Sabine Heiland; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Martin Bendszus Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Heiko Schmiedeskamp; Matus Straka; Rexford D Newbould; Greg Zaharchuk; Jalal B Andre; Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael E Moseley; Gregory W Albers; Roland Bammer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Leonardo A Rivera-Rivera; Patrick Turski; Kevin M Johnson; Carson Hoffman; Sara E Berman; Phillip Kilgas; Howard A Rowley; Cynthia M Carlsson; Sterling C Johnson; Oliver Wieben Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: William D Rooney; Xin Li; Manoj K Sammi; Dennis N Bourdette; Edward A Neuwelt; Charles S Springer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Kim-Lien Nguyen; Takegawa Yoshida; Fei Han; Ihab Ayad; Brian L Reemtsen; Isidro B Salusky; Gary M Satou; Peng Hu; J Paul Finn Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Ante Zhu; Scott B Reeder; Kevin M Johnson; Sydney M Nguyen; Thaddeus G Golos; Ann Shimakawa; Matthias R Muehler; Christopher J Francois; Ian M Bird; Sean B Fain; Dinesh M Shah; Oliver Wieben; Diego Hernando Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ante Zhu; Scott B Reeder; Kevin M Johnson; Sydney M Nguyen; Sean B Fain; Ian M Bird; Thaddeus G Golos; Oliver Wieben; Dinesh M Shah; Diego Hernando Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.546