A comparison of MR imaging of a mouse model of glioma at 0.2T and 9.4T

Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Volumn 204, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 118-123

  Blasiak, Barbara ^a,b   Volotovskyy, Vyacheslav ^c   Deng, Charlie ^c   Foniok, Tadeusz ^c   Tomanek, Boguslaw ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS   (Poland)

^c NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Brain; Glioma; Low field MRI; MRI; RF coil

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BRAIN SLICE; BRAIN TISSUE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GLIOMA; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MALE; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALS; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; GLIOMA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETICS; MALE; MICE; MICE, NUDE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84855171864     PISSN: 01650270     EISSN: 1872678X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.10.030     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Allmann K.H., Walter O., Laubenberger J., Uhl M., Buitago-Tellez C.H., Biebow N., et al. Magnetic resonance diagnosis of the anterior labrum and capsule. Effect of field strength on efficacy. Invest Radiol 1998, 33:415-420.
2. Barnettt J. MR diagnosis of internal derangement of the knee: effect of field strength on efficacy. Am J Roentgenol 1993, 161:1115-1118.
3. 2 changes in an early mouse brain tumor. Magn Reson Imaging 2010, 28:784-789.
4. Blasiak B., Volotovskyy V., Deng C., Tomanek B. An optimized solenoidal head radiofrequency coil for low-field magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2009, 27:1302-1308.
5. Bonart M.L., Kormaro M. MR equipment acquisition strategies: low field or high field scanners. Eur Radiol 1997, 7:263-268.
6. Breton E., Goetz C., Kintz J., Accart N., Aubertin G., Grellier B., et al. In vivo preclinical low field MRI monitoring of tumor growth following a suicide gene therapy in an orthotopic mice model of human glioblastoma. C R Biol 2010, 333:220-225.
7. Chen C.N., Sank V.J., Hoult D.I. The field dependance of NMR imaging. 1. Laboratory assessment of signal to noise ratio and power deposition. Magn Reson Med 1986, 3:722-729.
8. Choquet P., Breton E., Goetz C., Marin C., Constantinesco A. Dedicated low-field MRI in mice. Phys Med Biol 2009, 54:5287-5299.
9. Crooks L.E., Arakawa M., Hoenninger J., McCarten B., Watts J., Kaufman L. Magnetic resonance imaging: effect of magnetic field strength. Radiology 1984, 151:127-133.
10. Edelstein W.A., Glover G.H., Hardy C.J., Redington R.W. The intrinsci signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med 1986, 3:604-618.
11. Evers S.R. Anxiety of MR patients extends beyond claustrophobia. Diagn Imaging (San Franc) 1999, 21:41-48.
12. Fisher J.L., Schwartzbaum J.A., Wrensch M., Wiemels J.L. Epidemiology of brain tumors. Neurol Clin 2007, 25(4):867-890.
13. Hayashi N., Watanabe Y., Masumoto T., Mori H., Aoki S., Ohtomo K., et al. Utilization of low-field MR scaner. Magn Res Med Sci 2004, 3:27-38.
14. Hayes C.E., Edelstein W.A., Schenck J.F., Mueller O.M., Eash M. An efficient, highly homogenous radiofrequency coil for whole-body NMR imaging at 1.5T. J Magn Reson 1985, 63:622-628.
15. Hoult D.I., Chen C.N., Sank V.J. The field dependent of NMR imaging. II. Arguments concerning an optimal field strength. Magn Reson Med 1986, 3:730-746.
16. Hoult D.I., Richards R.E. The signal-to-noise ratio of the magnetic resonance experiment. J Magn Reson 1976, 24:71-85.
17. Hoult D.I. Sensitivity and power deposition in a high-field imaging experiment. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000, 12:46-67.
18. Kuhl C.K., Kreft B.P., Hauswirth A., Elevelt A., Steudel A., Reiser M., et al. MR mammography at 0.5 Tesla. I. Comparison of image quality and sensitivity of MR mammography at 0. 5 and 1. 5T. Roto Fortschr Geb Roentgenstr Neuen Verfahr 1995, 162:381-389.
19. Kuhl C.K., Kreft B.P., Hauswirth A., Geiseke J., Elevelt A., Reiser M., et al. MR mammography at 0.5 Tesla. II. The capacity to differentiate malignant and benign lesions in MR mammography at 0. 5 and 1. 5T. Roto Fortschr Geb Roengenstr Neuen Verfahr 1995, 162:482-491.
20. Lauffer R.B. Paramagnetic metal complexes as water proton relaxation agents for NMR imaging: theory and design. Chem Rev 1987, 87(5):901-927.
21. Lenz G., Drobnitzky M. Interventional MRI with an open low-field system. Interventional magnetic resonance imaging 1998, 3-10. Springer-Verlang, Berlin. J.F. Debatin, G. Adams (Eds.).
22. Merl T., Scholz M., Gerhardt P., Langer M., Laubenberger J., Weiss H.D., et al. Results of a prospective multicenter study for evaluation of the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI unit. A comparison with high-field MRI measured by the applicable gold standard. Eur J Radiol 1999, 30:43-53.
23. Orrison W.W., Stimac G.K., Stevens E.A., LaMasters D.L., Espinosa M.C., Cobb L., et al. Comparison of CT, low-field-strength MR imaging, and high-field-strength MR imaging. Radiology 1991, 181:121-127.
24. 2* decay and phase effects in gradient echo MRI of vertebral bone marrow. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995, 19(3):465-471.
25. Passariello R., Mastantuono M., Satraggno L. Magnetic resonance imaging of the extremities using dedicated equipment: diagnostic and economic considerations. Acad Radiol 1996, 3:141-144.
26. Spouse E., Gedroyc W.M. MRI of the claustrophobic patient: interventionally configured magnet. Br J Radiol 2000, 73:918-923.
27. Surawicz T.S., Davis F., Freels S., Laws E.R., Menck H.R. Brain tumor survival: results from the National Cancer Data Base. J Neurooncol 1998, 40(2):151-160.
28. Vullo T., Zipagan R.T., Pascone R., Whalen J.P., Cahill P.T. Experimental design and fabrication of birdcage resonators for magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 1992, 24(2):243-252.