Journal of the Institute of Electronics and Information Engineers (전자공학회논문지)

The Institute of Electronics and Information Engineers (대한전자공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Analysis of Quantitative Signal Intensity between 1.0 mol and 0.5 mol MR Contrast Agent

1.0 mol 과 0.5 mol MR조영제의 정량적 신호강도 비교분석

  • Jeong, Hyun Keun (Department fo Medical Imaging of Engineering. The Graduate School of Bio-Medical Science, Korea University) ;
  • Jeong, Hyun Do (Department of Psychology, Templeton University) ;
  • Nam, Ki Chang (Department of Medical Engineering, Dongguk University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jang, Geun Yeong (Department of Imaging Medicine, KEPCO Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Ho Chul (Department of Radiological Science, Eulji University)
  • 정현근 (고려대학교 의용과학대학원 의료영상공학과) ;
  • 정현도 (템플턴대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 남기창 (동국대학교 의과대학 의공학교실) ;
  • 장근영 (한전병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김호철 (을지대학교 방사선학과)
  • Received : 2015.09.30
  • Accepted : 2015.11.23
  • Published : 2015.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose on this research is quantitatively comparing and analyzing signal intensity of 1.0mol and 0.5mol contrast agent. For this study, two MR phantoms were produced. One of them is used with 1.0mol Gadobutrol. The other is used with 0.5mol Gadoteridol. These two phantoms respectively have been scanned by SE T1 sequence which is used to get a general contrast-enhanced image in 1.5T MRI and 3D FLASH sequence which is used as enhanced angio MRI. Signal intensity was measured by scanned images as per contrast agent dilution ratio. The results were as follow: RSP(Reaction Starting Point) of the two sequences(2D SE, 3D FLASH) was respectively 6.0%, 60.0% in 0.5mol contrast and 2.0%, 20.0% in 1.0mol contrast, which means in 0.5mol contrast, RSP was formed faster than the one in 1.0mol contrast. MPSI was respectively 1358.8[a.u], 1573[a.u] in 0.5mol contrast and 1374[a.u], 1642.4[a.u] in 1.0mol contrast, which means 0.5mol contrast's MPP (0.4%, 10.0%) was formed faster than 1.0mol contrast's MPP (0.16%, 1.8%). Lastly, RA as per contrast agent dilution ratio was 27.4%, 11.8% wider in 0.5mol contrast(20747.4[a.u], 23204.6[a.u]) than in 1.0mol contrast(12691.9[a.u], 20747.4[a.u]). According to the study, we are able to assure that signal reaction time of 1.0mol contrast is slower than the one of 0.5mol contrast in contrast-enhanced MRI at two different sequences(2D SE, 3D FLASH). Furthermore, owing to the fact that there are not any signal intensity differences between 1.0mol and 0.5mol contrast, it is not true that high concentration gadolinium MR contrast agent does not always mean high signal intensity in MRI.

본 연구의 목적은 1.0 mol 고농도 가돌리늄 조영제가 기존의 0.5 mol MR 조영제에 비해 얼마나 높은 신호강도를 보이는지를 정량적으로 비교 분석하는 것이다. 실험을 위하여 1.0 mol Gadobutrol과 0.5 mol Gadoteridol을 사용하여 희석비율을 달리한 각각의 MR팬텀을 제작하였다. 이를 1.5T MR장비의 조영증강 T1 검사인 2D SE 와 Head-Neck Angio의 3D FLASH 두 가지 방법으로 스캔하였다. 이후 영상에서 희석비율별 신호 강도를 측정하여 이를 비교 분석하였다. 두 개의 시퀀스(2D SE, 3D FLASH)에서의 조영증강 반응시작 지점인 RSP(Reaction Starting Point)는 0.5 mol에서는 두 시퀀스 각각 6.0%, 60.0%, 1.0mol에서는 2.0%, 20.0%로 0.5 mol 조영제서의 조영증강반응이 빨리 일어났다. 최대 신호강도인 MPSI(Max Peak Signal Intensity)는 0.5 mol에서 두 시퀀스 각각 1358.8[a.u], 1573.0[a.u], 1.0mol 에서는 1374.9[a.u], 1642.4[a.u]로 최대신호강도는 두 조영제 모두 비슷하였다. 더불어 최대신호강도를 보이는 희석비율 지점인 MPP(Max Peak Point)는 0.5 mol 에서는 두 시퀀스에서 각각 0.4%, 10.0%, 1.0mol 에서는 0.16%, 1,8%로 0.5 mol 조영제의 최대신호강도가 더 빨리 형성되었다. 각 희석비율에서의 조영증강 반응면적 RA(Reaction Area)는 0.5 mol 에서는 두 시퀀스 각각 20747.4[a.u], 23204.6[a.u], 1.0 mol 에서는 12691.9[a.u], 20747.4[a.u]로 0.5 mol 조영제가 두 시퀀스에서 각각 27.4%, 11.8% 더 높았다. 본 연구를 통하여 조영증강 T1과 Head-Neck Angio 검사에서 1.0 mol 고농도 가돌리늄 조영제가 0.5 mol MR조영제에 비하여 신호반응이 느리다는 사실을 확인하였으며, 최대 신호강도인 MPSI는 1.0 mol 조영제와 0.5 mol 조영제 둘 다 비슷하여 1.0 mol 고농도 가돌리늄 조영제가 MR영상에서 반드시 높은 신호강도를 보여주지 않는다는 것을 확인 할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. HK. Jeong, H. Jung, and H. Kim, "Quantitative Analysis of GBCA Reaction by Mol Concentration Change on MRI Sequence", The Institute of Electronics and Information Engineers, vol.52,pp.182-192,Feb,2015. https://doi.org/10.5573/ieie.2015.52.2.182
  2. HK. Jeong, H. Jung, K. Nam and H. Kim, "Gadoteridol's Signal Change according to TR, TE Parameters in T1 Image", The Institute of Electronics and Information Engineers, vol.52, No.9, pp.117-124, Sep, 2015.
  3. E. Hagberg, and K. Scheffler, "Effect of r(1) and r(2) relaxivity of gadolinium-based contrast agents on the T(1)-weighted MR signal at increasing magnetic field strengths", ContrastMedia MolImaging vol.8, no.6, pp. 456- 65, Nov-Dec, 2013.
  4. H. S. Thomsen, S. K. Morcos, T. Almen, M. F. Bellin, M. Bertolotto, G. Bongartz, O. Clement, P. Leander, G. Heinz-Peer, P. Reimer, F. Stacul, A. van der Molen, J. A. Webb, and E. C. M. S. Committee, "Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines", EurRadiol, vol.23, no.2, pp.307-18, Feb, 2013.
  5. S. K. Morcos, "Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis following the administration of extracellular gadolinium based contrast agents: is the stability of the contrast agent molecule an important factor in the pathogenesis of this condition?", BrJRadiol,vol.80,no.950,pp.73-6, Feb, 2007.
  6. F. G. Shellock, and A. Spinazzi, "MRI safety update 2008: part 1, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis", AJRAm JRoentgenol, vol.191, no.4, pp.1129-39, Oct, 2008.
  7. A. Spinazzi, M. A. Kirchin, and G. Pirovano, "Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: the need for accurate case reporting", JMagnResonImaging, vol.29, no.5, pp.1240; authorreply 1241, May, 2009.
  8. K. R. Maravilla, M. P. Smith, J. Vymazal, M. Goyal, M. Herman, J. J. Baima, R. Babbel, M. Vaneckova, J. Zizka, C. Colosimo, M. Urbanczyk-Zawadzka, M. Mechl, A. K. Bag, S. Bastianello, E. Bueltmann, T. Hirai, T. Frattini, M. A. Kirchin, and G. Pirovano, "Are there differences between macrocyclic gadolinium contrast agents for brain tumor imaging? Results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobutrol with gadoteridol (the TRUTH study)," AJNRAmJNeuroradiol, vol.36, no.1, pp.14-23, Jan, 2015.

Cited by

  1. Optimization of Flip Angle at Head & Neck MR Angiography using Gadoteridol vol.53, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5573/ieie.2016.53.3.151
  2. Signal Change of Iodinated Contrast Agents in MR Imaging vol.53, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5573/ieie.2016.53.12.131
  3. 9.4T MRI FLASH Sequence에서 마우스의 뇌 조영증강 검사를 위한 적정 Echo phase vol.54, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5573/ieie.2017.54.7.115