Pulse repetition time and contrast enhancement: Simulation study of Gd-BOPTA and conventional contrast agent at different field strengths

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 267-275

  Yrjänä, Sanna K ^a   Vaara, Teuvo ^b   Karttunen, Ari ^a   Koivukangas, John ^a,c  

^a OULU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain neoplasm; Contrast media; Imaging techniques; Theoretical model

Indexed keywords

GADOBENIC ACID; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ARTICLE; BRAIN TUMOR; CASE REPORT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GLIOMA; HUMAN; NEUROIMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELAXATION TIME; WHITE MATTER;

EID: 40949144911     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181636eb8     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Carr DH, Brown J, Bydder GM, et al. Intravenous chelated gadolinium as a contrast agent in NMR imaging of cerebral tumours. The Lancet. 1984;3:484-486.
2. Essig M. Gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance®) in MR imaging of the CNS: studies to assess the benefits of a high relaxivity contrast agent. Acad Radiol. ;12(suppl 1):S23-S27.
3. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H, et al. Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadobutrol (Gadovist), and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:213-221 [Erratum 2006;41:859.]
4. 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.
5. Knauth M, Wirtz CR, Aras N, et al. Low-field interventional MRI in neurosurgery: finding the right dose of contrast medium. Neuroradiology. 2001;43:254-258.
6. Trattnig S, Pinker K, Ba-Ssalamah A, et al. The optimal use of contrast agents at high field MRI. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1280-1287.
7. 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.
8. Bonel HM, Schneider P, Seemann MD, et al. MR imaging of the wrist in rheumatoid arthritis using gadobenate dimeglumine. Skeletal Radiol. 2001;30:15-24.
9. Ruscalleda J, Kirchin MA, La Noce A, et al. MultiHance in the assessment of intracranial tumors: results of phase II clinical studies. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999;23(suppl 1):S19-S27.
10. Essig M, Tartaro A, Tartaglione T, et al. Enhancing lesions of the brain: intraindividual crossover comparison of contrast enhancement after gadobenate dimeglumine versus established gadolinium comparators. Acad Radiol. 2006;13:744-751.
11. 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.
12. Kuhn MJ, Picozzi P, Maldjian JA, et al. Evaluation of intraaxial enhancing brain tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for visualization and assessment, and implications for surgical intervention. J Neurosurg. 2007;106:557-566.
13. 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.
14. Colosimo C, Demaerel P, Tortori-Donati P, et al. Comparison of gadobenate Dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) with gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) for enhanced MR imaging of brain and spine tumours in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2005;35:501-510.
15. Laurent S, Elst LV, Muller RN. Comparative study of the physicochemical properties of six clinical low molecular weight gadolinium contrast agents. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2006;1:128-137.
16. Elster AD. How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(suppl 5):S276-S280.
17. Lauffer RB. MRI contrast agents: basic principles. In: Edelman RE, Hesselink JR, Zlatkin MB, eds. Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company;1996:177-191.
18. Bernstein MA, King KF, Xiaohong JZ. Handbook of MRI Pulse Sequences. Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.
19. May DA, Pennington DJ. Effect of gadolinium concentration on renal signal intensity: an in vitro study with a saline bag model. Radiology. 2000;216:232-236.
20. Fritz-Hansen T, Rostrup E, Larsson HBW, et al. Measurement of the arterial concentration of Gd-DTPA using MRI: a step toward quantitative perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36:225-231.
21. Yrjana SK, Vaara T, Karttunen A, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of brain tumors in low-field using undersampled projection reconstruction. Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;22:799-805.
22. Souza SP, Szumovski J, Dumoulin CL, et al. SIMA: simultaneous multislice acquisition of MR images by Hadamard encoded excitation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1988;12:1026-1030.
23. Fletcher DW, Haselgrove JC, Bolinger L. High-resolution imaging using hadamard encoding. MRI. 1999;17:1457-1468.
24. Bottomley PA, Hardy CJ, Argersinger RE, et al. A review of 1H nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation in pathology: are T1 and T2 diagnostic? Med Phys. 1987;14:1-37.
25. Ahrens ET, Rothbächer U, Jacobs RE, et al. A model for MRI contrast enhancement using T1 agents. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1998;95:8443-8448.
26. Bernarding J, Braun J, Hohmann J, et al. Histogram-based characterization of healthy and ischemic brain tissues using multiparametric MR imaging including apparent diffusion coefficient maps and relaxometry. Magn Reson Med. 2000;43:52-61.
27. 2O relaxation in vivo. Magn Reson Med. 2007;57:308-318.
28. Parry A, Clare S, Jenkinson M, et al. White matter and lesion T1 relaxation times increase in parallel and correlate with disability in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2002;249:1279-1286.
29. Hittmair K, Turetschek K, Gomiscek G, et al. Field strength dependence of MRI contrast enhancement: phantom measurements and application to dynamic breast imaging. Br J Radiol. 1996;96:215-220.
30. Koenig SH. Molecular basis of magnetic relaxation of water protons of tissue. Acad Radiol. 1996;3:597-606.
31. Rinck PA, Muller RN. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:998-1004.
32. Wintersperger BJ, Runge VM, Biswas J, et al. Brain tumor enhancement in MR imaging at 3 T: comparison of SNR and CNR gain using TSE and GRE techniques. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:558-563.
33. Michaely HJ, Kramer H, Oesingmann N, et al. Intraindividual comparison of MR-renal perfusion imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:406-411.
34. Nael K, Fenchel M, Krishnam M, et al. 3.0 Tesla high spatial resolution contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) of the pulmonary circulation: initial experience with a 32-channel phased array coil using a high relaxivity contrast agent. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:392-398.
35. Giesel FL, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Wilkinson ID, et al. Influence of human serum albumin on longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates (R1 and R2) of magnetic resonance contrast agents. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:222-228.