Brain tumor enhancement in MR imaging at 3 Tesla: Comparison of SNR and CNR gain using TSE and GRE techniques

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 558-563

  Wintersperger, Bernd J ^a,b   Runge, Val M ^b   Biswas, Jonmenjoy ^b   Reiser, Maximilian F ^a   Schönberg, Stefan O ^a  

^a LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b TEXAS A AND M HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

3 Tesla; Brain neoplasms; CNR; GRE; Magnetic resonance imaging; SNR; TSE

Indexed keywords

GADOTERIDOL;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BRAIN TUMOR; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE MODEL; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NEUROIMAGING; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 34447323592     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31803e8b3f     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Runge VM, Muroff LR, Jinkins JR. Central nervous system: review of clinical use of contrast media. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;12:231-263.
2. Edelstein WA, Glover GH, Hardy CJ, et al. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1986;3:604-618.
3. Runge VM, Patel MC, Baumann SS, et al. T1-weighted imaging of the brain at 3 Tesla using a 2-dimensional spoiled gradient echo technique. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:68-75.
4. Nielsen K, Rostrup E, Frederiksen JL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla detects more lesions in acute optic neuritis than at 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:76-82.
5. Runge VM, Case RS, Sonnier HL. Advances in clinical 3-Tesla neuroimaging. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:63-67.
6. Biswas J, Nelson CB, Runge VM, et al. Brain tumor enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at 1.5 versus 3 Tesla.Invest Radiol. 2005;40:792-797.
7. Runge VM, Biswas J, Wintersperger BJ, et al. The efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) at 3 Tesla in brain magnetic resonance imaging: comparison to 1.5 Tesla and a standard gadolinium chelate using a rat brain tumor model. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:244-248.
8. Lu H, Nagae-Poetscher LM, Golay X, et al. Routine clinical brain MRI sequences for use at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22:13-22.
9. Trattnig S, Ba-Ssalamah A, Noebauer-Huhmann IM, et al. MR contrast agent at high-field MRI (3 Tesla). Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;14:365-375.
10. Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Ba-Ssalamah A, Mlynarik V, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging contrast enhancement of brain tumors at 3 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2002;37:114-119.
11. Runge VM, Armstrong MR, Barr RG, et al. A clinical comparison of the safety and efficacy of MultiHance (gadobenate dimeglumine) and Omniscan (Gadodiamide) in magnetic resonance imaging in patients with central nervous system pathology. Invest Radiol. 2001;36:65-71.
12. Knopp MV, Runge VM, Essig M, et al. Primary and secondary brain tumors at MR imaging: bicentric intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 2004;230:55-64.
13. Maravilla KR, Maldjian JA, Schmalfuss IM, et al. Contrast enhancement of central nervous system lesions: multicenter intraindividual crossover comparative study of two MR contrast agents. Radiology. 2006;240:389-400.
14. Ba-Ssalamah A, Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Pinker K, et al. Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:415-422.
15. Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Pinker K, Barth M, et al. Contrast-enhanced, high-resolution, susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the brain: dose-dependent optimization at 3 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla in healthy volunteers. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:249-255.
16. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, et al. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:715-724.
17. Fischer HW, Rinck PA, Van Haverbeke Y, et al. Nuclear relaxation of human brain gray and white matter: analysis of field dependence and implications for MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1990;16:317-334.
18. Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, et al. A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1-100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys. 1984;11:425-448.
19. Gelman N, Gorell JM, Barker PB, et al. MR imaging of human brain at 3.0 T: preliminary report on transverse relaxation rates and relation to estimated iron content. Radiology. 1999;210:759-767.
20. Wansapura JP, Holland SK, Dunn RS, et al. NMR relaxation times in the human brain at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:531-538.
21. Gelman N, Ewing JR, Gorell JM, et al. Interregional variation of longitudinal relaxation rates in human brain at 3.0 T: relation to estimated iron and water contents. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:71-79.
22. Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ, et al. Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T - initial experience. Radiology. 2005;237:1014-1019.
23. Duewell S, Wolff SD, Wen H, et al. MR imaging contrast in human brain tissue: assessment and optimization at 4 T. Radiology. 1996;199:780-786.
24. Stehling C, Niederstadt T, Kramer S, et al. [Comparison of a T1-weighted inversion-recovery-, gradient-echo- and spin-echo sequence for imaging of the brain at 3.0 Tesla]. Rofo. 2005;177:536-542.