S Rand1, K R Maravilla, U Schmiedl. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle 98195.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the lesser lesion conspicuity after gadolinium contrast infusion with radio-frequency spoiled gradient-echo (SPGR) sequences relative to conventional T1-weighted spin-echo techniques. METHODS: The influences of repetition time, echo time, and flip angle on spin-echo and SPGR signal were studied with mathematical modeling of the image signal amplitude for concentrations of gadopentetate dimeglumine solute from 0 to 10 mM. Predictions of signal strength were verified in vitro by imaging of a doped water phantom. The effects of standard (0.1 mmol/kg) and high-dose (0.3 mmol/kg) gadoteridol on spin-echo and SPGR images were also investigated in three patients. RESULTS: The measured amplitude of undoped water and the rate of increase of doped water signal with increasing gadopentetate concentration (slope) for spin-echo 600/11/1/90 degrees (repetition time/echo time/excitations/flip angle) and SPGR (600/11/190 degrees) were similar and exceeded those of SPGR (35/5/145 degrees). Greater increases in SPGR doped water signal and its slope were produced by increasing TR than by varying echo-time or flip angle. The subjective lesion conspicuity and measured lesion contrast at 0.3 mmol/kg were greater with spin-echo (600/11/1/90 degrees) than with SPGR (35/5/145 degrees) in all three patients; the measured lesion enhancement was similar for both techniques in two patients and decreased for SPGR in the third patient. CONCLUSIONS: The phantom studies suggest that the short repetition time of 35 msec, typically used in clinical SPGR imaging, is largely responsible for a reduced signal amplitude and a diminished rate of increase of signal with increasing gadopentetate concentration, relative to spin-echo. Phantom and clinical studies suggest that the dose of paramagnetic agent required to achieve SPGR lesion conspicuity with short repetition time comparable with spin-echo would have to be higher than the dose in current clinical use.
PURPOSE: To investigate the lesser lesion conspicuity after gadolinium contrast infusion with radio-frequency spoiled gradient-echo (SPGR) sequences relative to conventional T1-weighted spin-echo techniques. METHODS: The influences of repetition time, echo time, and flip angle on spin-echo and SPGR signal were studied with mathematical modeling of the image signal amplitude for concentrations of gadopentetate dimeglumine solute from 0 to 10 mM. Predictions of signal strength were verified in vitro by imaging of a doped water phantom. The effects of standard (0.1 mmol/kg) and high-dose (0.3 mmol/kg) gadoteridol on spin-echo and SPGR images were also investigated in three patients. RESULTS: The measured amplitude of undoped water and the rate of increase of doped water signal with increasing gadopentetate concentration (slope) for spin-echo 600/11/1/90 degrees (repetition time/echo time/excitations/flip angle) and SPGR (600/11/190 degrees) were similar and exceeded those of SPGR (35/5/145 degrees). Greater increases in SPGR doped water signal and its slope were produced by increasing TR than by varying echo-time or flip angle. The subjective lesion conspicuity and measured lesion contrast at 0.3 mmol/kg were greater with spin-echo (600/11/1/90 degrees) than with SPGR (35/5/145 degrees) in all three patients; the measured lesion enhancement was similar for both techniques in two patients and decreased for SPGR in the third patient. CONCLUSIONS: The phantom studies suggest that the short repetition time of 35 msec, typically used in clinical SPGR imaging, is largely responsible for a reduced signal amplitude and a diminished rate of increase of signal with increasing gadopentetate concentration, relative to spin-echo. Phantom and clinical studies suggest that the dose of paramagnetic agent required to achieve SPGR lesion conspicuity with short repetition time comparable with spin-echo would have to be higher than the dose in current clinical use.
Authors: L Danieli; G C Riccitelli; D Distefano; E Prodi; E Ventura; A Cianfoni; A Kaelin-Lang; M Reinert; E Pravatà Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Hodel; O Outteryck; E Ryo; A-L Bocher; O Lambert; D Chéchin; H Zéphir; A Lacour; J-P Pruvo; P Vermersch; X Leclerc Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Daniel D Cummins; Michael T Caton; Vinil Shah; Karl Meisel; Christine Glastonbury; Matthew R Amans Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: H J Baek; Y J Heo; D Kim; S Y Yun; J W Baek; H W Jeong; H J Choo; J Y Lee; S-I Oh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: A Traboulsee; J H Simon; L Stone; E Fisher; D E Jones; A Malhotra; S D Newsome; J Oh; D S Reich; N Richert; K Rammohan; O Khan; E-W Radue; C Ford; J Halper; D Li Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S C Thust; S Heiland; A Falini; H R Jäger; A D Waldman; P C Sundgren; C Godi; V K Katsaros; A Ramos; N Bargallo; M W Vernooij; T Yousry; M Bendszus; M Smits Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315