Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences
Online ISSN : 1880-2206
Print ISSN : 1347-3182
ISSN-L : 1347-3182
Volume 18, Issue 4
Displaying 1-14 of 14 articles from this issue
Clinical Images
Major Papers
  • Yawara Haga, Junichi Hata, Akiko Uematsu, Fumiko Seki, Yuji Komaki, Ma ...
    2019 Volume 18 Issue 4 Pages 253-259
    Published: 2019
    Released on J-STAGE: October 15, 2019
    Advance online publication: February 07, 2019
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS

    Purpose: Ex vivo brains have different MRI properties than in vivo brains because of chemical changes caused by fixative solutions, which change the signal intensity and/or tissue contrast on MR images. In this study, we investigated and compared the MRI properties of in vivo and ex vivo brains.

    Methods: Using a Bruker 9.4T experimental scanner unit for animals (Biospin GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany), we performed this study on the common marmoset. We measured the relaxation and diffusion values in the white matter and cortex of common marmosets and compared these values between in vivo brains (n = 20) and ex vivo brains (n = 20). Additionally, we observed the relationship between the tissue fixation duration and MRI properties by imaging a brain that underwent long-term fixation in a preliminary examination (n = 1).

    Results: The T1 values of ex vivo brains were decreased compared with those of in vivo brains; however, there were no significant difference in the T2 and T2* values of in vivo and ex vivo brains. Axial, radial, and mean diffusivity values of ex vivo brains decreased to approximately 65% and 52% of those of in vivo brains in the cortex and white matter, respectively. Conversely, fractional anisotropy values were not significantly different between in vivo and ex vivo brains.

    Conclusion: The T1 values and diffusion coefficient values of the ex vivo brains were strikingly different than those of the in vivo brains. Conversely, there were no significant changes in the T2, T2* or fractional anisotropy values. Altogether, the dehydration caused by tissue fixation and the reduction in brain temperature were involved in changing the relaxation and diffusion coefficient values. Here, it was difficult to specify all factors causing these changes. Further detailed study is needed to examine changes in MRI properties.

    Download PDF (3666K)
  • Shohei Fujita, Misaki Nakazawa, Akifumi Hagiwara, Ryo Ueda, Moeko Hori ...
    2019 Volume 18 Issue 4 Pages 260-264
    Published: 2019
    Released on J-STAGE: October 15, 2019
    Advance online publication: February 19, 2019
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS

    Purpose: Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) provide valuable information for assessing and differentiating lesions in the body. However, contrast enhancement evaluation on conventional MRI is qualitative because the signal intensity uses an arbitrary scale. An approach that allows more quantitative assessment of tissue enhancement that can be integrated into clinical use is desirable. This study aimed to provide a method that can estimate GBCA concentration in a clinically applicable scan-time.

    Methods: Gadolinium-based contrast agent concentrations were quantified in phantoms containing water and nine different concentrations of Gadoteridol (Gd-HP-DO3A), ranging from 0.02 to 1.00 mmol/L, using quantitative synthetic MRI. Simple linear regression analysis between the estimated GBCA concentration and the reference values were performed to assess the accuracy. We performed region of interest analysis on each phantom, and recorded the mean and standard deviation. We evaluated the precision of the GBCA map by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV) for each concentration. The GBCA concentration quantification method was applied for 10 patients with metastatic brain tumors to demonstrate the feasibility of this method.

    Results: For the phantom study, estimated GBCA concentrations were in a strong linear relationship (R2 = 0.998) with reference values, with a slope and intercept on simple linear regression analysis of 0.98 and 0.02, respectively. On precision assessment, the CV was <5%, with the exception of concentrations under 0.07 mmol/L. In the range of 0.07–0.99 mmol/L, the mean CV was 1.5 ± 1.2%. For application to brain metastases, the maximum estimated GBCA concentration in the metastases was 0.73 mmol/L, which was under the upper limit evaluated in the phantom study (i.e. −0.99 mmol/L).

    Conclusion: The concentration of Gd-HP-DO3A in the range of 0.07–0.99 mmol/L can be measured in a clinically applicable scan time using quantitative synthetic MRI, even though this study’s results are only preliminary due to several limitations.

    Download PDF (3148K)
  • Tomoya Watanabe, Haruo Isoda, Atushi Fukuyama, Mamoru Takahashi, Tomoy ...
    2019 Volume 18 Issue 4 Pages 265-271
    Published: 2019
    Released on J-STAGE: October 15, 2019
    Advance online publication: March 04, 2019
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS

    Purpose: The accuracy of flow velocity and three-directional velocity components are important for the precise visualization of hemodynamics by 3D cine phase-contrast MRI (3D cine PC MRI, also referred to as 4D-flow). The aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of these measurements of prototype or commercially available 3D cine PC MRI obtained by three different manufactures’ MR scanners.

    Methods: The verification of the accuracy of flow velocity in 3D cine PC MRI was performed by circulating blood mimicking fluid through a straight-tube phantom in a slanting position, such that the three-directional velocity components were simultaneously measurable, using three 3T MR scanners from different manufacturers. The data obtained were processed by phase correction, and the velocity and three-directional velocity components in the center of the tube on the central cross section of a slab were calculated. The velocity profile in each three directions and the composite velocity profiles were compared with the calculated reference values, using the Hagen–Poiseuille equation. In addition, velocity profiles and the spatially time-averaged velocity perpendicular to the tube were compared with the theoretical values and measured values by a flowmeter, respectively.

    Results: An underestimation of the maximum velocity in the center of the tube and an overestimation of the velocity near the tube wall due to partial volume effects were observed in all three scanners. A roughening and flattening of profiles in the center of the tube were observed in one scanner, due, presumably, to the low signal-to-noise ratio. However, the spatially time-averaged velocities corresponded well with the measured values by the flowmeter in all three scanners.

    Conclusion: In this study, we have demonstrated that the accuracy of flow velocity and three-directional velocity components in 3D cine PC MRI was satisfactory in all three MR scanners.

    Download PDF (4423K)
Technical Notes
Brief Communications
feedback
Top