Hyperpolarized saline for contrast-enhanced MR at Ultra-Low field
Najat Salameh1,2,3, Mathieu Sarracanie1,2,3, Loyd Waites4, David Waddington1,3,5, and Matthew Rosen1,2,3

1MGH/HST Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, MA, United States, 2Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States, 3Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States, 4Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, United States, 5ARC Center for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Synopsis

Radiologists routinely use contrast-enhanced MRI with applications mainly in oncology and abdominal imaging. Over the last decade, researchers have put significant efforts in developing new probes for molecular imaging where contrast agents would target only specific cells and/or regions. In all cases, one main question remains: what is the potential toxicity of this new contrast agent? We propose here a safe approach to contrast-enhanced MRI, using pre-polarized biocompatible saline combined with imaging at ultra-low field (0.0065 T).

Purpose

Contrast-enhanced MRI relies on changing the relaxivity of tissue, either by reduction in T1 allowing an enhanced signal on T1-weighted images, or by a reduction in T2* resulting in negative contrast on T2 or T2* weighted images to track the uptake of the contrast agent. At ultra-low field (ULF), normal biological T1 values are significantly shorter compared to those at high field, and the ULF regime is generally immune to T2* effects suggesting that conventional contrast agents will not be of tremendous utility for ULF imaging. We describe here a new approach in ULF imaging by using saline as contrast medium. Saline is biologically safe, and with the use of a small, strong pre-polarizing permanent magnet, enables contrast-enhanced MRI at 0.0065 T.

Methods

Imaging was performed at 0.0065 T using a custom-built electromagnet-based MRI scanner1 (Fig.1). Saline hyperpolarization was performed using a 1.3 T permanent magnet placed in the Faraday cage of the scan room, 1 m away from the NMR coil (Fig.1). The permanent magnet is a 5.5 cm deep cylinder of diameter 5.5 cm, with a 2 cm axial hole (K&J Magnetics, Pipersville, USA). It was placed inside a custom-built steel shielded box, designed by simulation with COMSOL Multiphysics (Burlington, USA) to minimize the effect of the permanent magnet on the homogeneity of our scanner. A 10 mL plastic syringe was modified to form a cylinder with luer-lock connectors on both ends and was placed inside of the permanent magnet. One end was connected to a 60 mL syringe filled with water and placed on an infusion pump outside the Faraday cage. The other end was connected to a PE50 capillary which in turn connected to our phantom located in the imaging coil. The phantom itself consists of a modified 60 mL syringe allowing for continuous flow (with input from the 1.3 T magnet side, and output to a waste container/jar). Constant flow of 20 mL per minute was started a few seconds before the acquisition began. A 17 s b-SSFP sequence with 50% undersampling and number of average NA=5 for a 2×2×10 mm3 spatial resolution was used as a reference before repeating the same acquisition while injecting hyperpolarized water at a flow rate of 20 mL/min. The same scan with NA=20 was used as a reference. Data were processed using MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, USA) with scripts written in house.

Results

Simulations with COMSOL showed that the contribution to the local magnetic field due to the permanent magnet were efficiently removed using our shielded box (Fig.2). The impact of the permanent magnet on T2* was, however, strong (T2* dropped to 52 ms and was 690 ms without the 1.3 T magnet), but did not affect too strongly image quality. Figure 3 shows the image with NA=5 and no hyperpolarized water, whereas b) shows the results for contrast-enhanced imaging. The enhanced water jet was overlaid on the reference image with NA=20 c) and the result is shown in d).

Discussion

Our results show that we are able to perform contrast-enhanced MR imaging at ultra-low magnetic field by using a strong permanent magnet placed close to our detection setup to hyperpolarize water. We show that the presence of a permanent magnet inside the Faraday cage affects T2* but not enough to prevent good imaging quality. The transfer to in vivo applications remains challenging for two main reasons. The first limitation comes from the weak imaging gradient strength of our MRI scanner (~ 1mT/m), which prevents from either better spatial resolution or faster duty cycles and thus shorter acquisition times. The second limitation comes from the short T1 of hyperpolarized water (a few seconds) in our ULF regime. A combination of stronger gradients and optimized NMR coils for receive operation would certainly help, as well as an efficient way to inject hyperpolarized water in this setting (in particular by significantly reducing the dead volume in the 1m tubing to the our phantom).

Conclusion

We have shown that hyperpolarized water can be used to perform contrast-enhanced MRI at ultra-low magnetic field. This result, once optimized and tested in vivo, would open opportunities for MR angiography in a cost-effective portable MRI scanner using fully biocompatible saline. Of particular interest is the possible early diagnostic of acute phase of stroke.

Acknowledgements

D.E.J. Waddington was supported by ANSTO and the Australian-American Fulbright Commisson.

References

1. Sarracanie M, LaPierre C, Salameh N, et al. Low-cost high-performance MRI. Sci Rep 2015;5:15177

Figures

Figure 1: Schematic of the experimental setup.(Left) Overview of the 6.5 mT scanner, and (Right) detailed view of the equipment placed inside the scanner. A syringe filled with water is placed on an automated pump located outside of the Faraday cage. Water is pushed continuously via a plastic tube connected to a water container inside the 1.3T permanent magnet. The water is prepolarized before flowing out into a PE50 capillary connected to our phantom. The output water is collected in a jar.

Figure 2: Simulations. Top: Magnetic field of the biplanar 6.5 mT electromagnetic MRI scanner. Middle: field coming from the MRI scanner coils (red), the 1.3 T permanent magnet (green), and the sum of the two (blue). Bottom: field with the permanent magnet placed in the shielded box. It is clear from the blue line that the induced field coming from the permanent magnet between the coils of the MRI scanner is negligble when the 1.3 T magnet is placed in a shielded box.

Figure 3: Results showing a) a reference image with NA=5, no flow and no hyperpolarized water, b) NA=5 with flowing hyperpolarized water at 20mL/min, c) a reference scan with NA=20 where the whole imaged phantom is clearly visible, and d) the overlay of b) onto c), the hyperpolarized water jet entering the phantom.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
0815