JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Comparative Analysis of Quantitative Signal Intensity between 1.0 mol and 0.5 mol MR Contrast Agent
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Comparative Analysis of Quantitative Signal Intensity between 1.0 mol and 0.5 mol MR Contrast Agent
Jeong, Hyun Keun; Jeong, Hyun Do; Nam, Ki Chang; Jang, Geun Yeong; Kim, Ho Chul;
  PDF(new window)
 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.
 Keywords
1.0mol Gadobutrol;0.5mol Gadoteridol;MR contrast agent;mol concentration;Gadolinium;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
요오드화 조영제가 MR영상에 미치는 신호 변화,정현근;김성호;강충환;이수호;김민기;이윤;김호철;

전자공학회논문지, 2016. vol.53. 12, pp.131-138 crossref(new window)
2.
Gadoteridol을 이용한 Head & Neck MR Angiography에서의 적정 Flip Angle,정현근;김민기;송재준;남기창;최현성;정현도;김호철;

전자공학회논문지, 2016. vol.53. 3, pp.151-159 crossref(new window)
 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. crossref(new window)

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.