Journal of Magnetics

The Korean Magnetics Society (한국자기학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of Iodinated Contrast Media and Paramagnetic Contrast Media on Changes in Uptake Counts of 99mTc

  • Cho, Jae-Hwan (Department of International Radiological Science, Hallym University of Graduate Studies) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Hyeok (Department of International Radiological Science, Hallym University of Graduate Studies) ;
  • Park, Cheol-Soo (Department of Radiological Science, Hallym Polytechnic University) ;
  • Lee, Sun-Yeob (Department of Radiological Science, Hallym Polytechnic University) ;
  • Lee, Jin (Department of International Radiological Science, Hallym University of Graduate Studies) ;
  • Moon, Deog-Hwan (Department of Public Health, Graduate School, Inje University) ;
  • Lee, Hae-Kag (Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Soonchunhyang University)
  • Received : 2014.05.29
  • Accepted : 2014.06.23
  • Published : 2014.09.30

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to figure out how uptake counts of technetium ($^{99m}Tc$) among radioisotopes in the human body are affected if computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and isotope examination are performed consecutively. $^{99m}Tc$ isotope material, iodinated contrast media for CT and paramagnetic contrast media for magnetic resonance (MR) were used as experimental materials. First, $^{99m}Tc$ was added to 4 cc normal saline in a test tube. Then, 2 cc of CT contrast media such as $Iopamidol^{(R)}$ and $Dotarem^{(R)}$ were diluted with 2 cc normal saline, and 2cc of MRI contrast media such as $Primovist^{(R)}$ and $Gadovist^{(R)}$ were diluted with 2 cc normal saline. Each distributed contrast media was a total of 4 cc and included 10m Ci of $^{99m}Tc$. A gamma camera, a LEHR (Low energy high resolution) collimator and a pin-hole collimator were used for image acquisition. Image acquisition was repeated a total of 6 times and 120 frames were obtained and uptake counts of $^{99m}Tc$ were measured (from this procedure). In this study, as a result of measuring the uptake counts of $^{99m}Tc$ using the LEHR collimator, the uptake counts were less measured in all contrast media than normal saline as a reference. In particular, the lowest uptake counts were measured when $Gadovist^{(R)}$, contrast media for MRI, was used. However, the result of measuring the uptake counts of $^{99m}Tc$ using the pin-hole collimator showed higher uptake counts in all contrast media, except for $Iopamidol^{(R)}$, than normal saline as a reference. The highest uptake counts were measured particularly when $Primovist^{(R)}$, contrast media for MRI, was used. In performing the gamma camera examination using contrast media and $^{99m}Tc$, it is considered significant to check the changes in the uptake counts to improve various diagnosis values.

Keywords

File

Download PDF

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Soonchunhyang university

References

  1. J. Cinnamon, A. B. Viroslav, and J. H. Dorey, Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 16, 212 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0887-2171(95)90019-5
  2. I. Markaki, I. Franzén, C. Talani, L. Loizou, and N. Kostulas, Cerebrovasc. Dis. 35, 213 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1159/000346094
  3. J. Vogel-Claussen, E. K. Fishman, and D. A. Bluemke, Expert Rev Cardiovasc. Ther. 5, 791 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1586/14779072.5.4.791
  4. H. Hanyu, H. Arai, S. Abe, T. Iwamoto, M. Takasaki, H. Katsunuma, T. Suzuki, K. Abe, and S. Amino, Ann. Nucl. Med. 7, 45 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03164791
  5. N. O. Kucuk, G. Aras, E. Ibiş, A. Soylu, N. Tascilar, N. Yucemen, and N. Mutluer, Ann. Nucl. Med. 14, 319 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02988218
  6. T. Tsuchida, Y. Yonekura, N. Sadato, N. Takahashi, K. Yamamoto, and Y. Ishii, Ann. Nucl. Med. 13, 265 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03164903
  7. P. E. Kinahan, D. W. Townsend, T. Beyer, and D. Sashin, Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med. Phys. 25, 2046 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598392
  8. D. Visvikis, D. C. Costa, I. Croasdale, A. H. Lonn, J. Bomanji, S. Gacinovic, and P. J. Ell, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 30, 344 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-1070-4
  9. G. Antoch, L. S. Freudenberg, T. Egelhof, J. Stattaus, W. Jentzen, J. F. Debatin, and A. Bockisch, J. Nucl. Med. 43, 1339 (2002).
  10. Y. Nakamoto, B. B. Chin, D. L. Kraitchman, L. P. Lawler, L. T. Marshall, and R. L. Wahl, Radiology 227, 817 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2273020299
  11. G. Antoch, L. S. Freudenberg, J. Stattaus, W. Jentzen, S. P. Mueller, J. F. Debatin, and A. Bockisch, Am. J. Roentgenol. 179, 1555 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791555
  12. H. O. Anger. Rev. Sci. Inst. 29, 27 (1958). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1715998
  13. G. S. Cho, Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 42, 88 (2008).
  14. G. S. Hill, and R. S. Clark, Invest. Radiol. 7, 133 (1972).
  15. C. H. Chen, M. H. Huang, J. C. Yang, C. K. Nien, C. C. Yang, Y. H. Yeh, and S. K. Yueh, J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 40, 745 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1097/00004836-200609000-00016
  16. J. H. Kim, J. S. Lee, J. S. Kim, B. I. Lee, S. M. Kim, I. S. Choung, Y. K. Kim, W. W. Lee, S. E. Kim, J. K. Chung, M. C. Lee, and D. S. Lee, Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 39, 445 (2006).
  17. M. R. Violante and P. B. Dean, Radiology 134, 237 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.134.1.7350611
  18. G. Antoch, L. S. Freudenberg, T. Beyer, A. Bockisch, and J. F. Debatin, J. Nucl. Med. 45, 56S (2004).

Cited by

  1. Tc on Changes of Computed Tomography Number vol.20, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2015.20.3.302
  2. Differential Absorption Analysis of Nonmagnetic Material in the Phantom using Dual CT vol.21, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2016.21.2.286
  3. Analysis on Setup Variation According to Megavoltage Computed Tomography System vol.21, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2016.21.3.425