Tilman Schubert1,2, Utaroh Motosugi3, Samir Sharma4, Sonja Kinner1, Shane Wells1, Diego Hernando1, and Scott Reeder1
1Radiology, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States, 2Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland, 3Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan, 4Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States
Synopsis
Ferumoxytol
has gained interest as a positive MR-contrast agent in patients with renal
failure. However, limited data exist regarding the optimal/minimal dose for MRA
applications and optimal scanning parameters. Therefore, this study evaluated
image quality with different doses of ferumoxytol with gadolinium as reference.
Furthermore, flip angle optimization was performed in the steady state.
Relative SNR was found to be significantly higher
for gadolinium- compared to ferumoxytol-enhanced MRA during first pass.
However, this did not lead to qualitative penalty for ferumoxytol-enhanced MRA.
Flip angle-optimization indicated that adapting the flip angle to dose may
help to achieve optimal results. Purpose
Ferumoxytol has gained interest as a
positive MR-contrast agent in patients with renal failure, due to the absence
of nephrotoxicity concerns [1]. Furthermore, ferumoxytol is an effective blood
pool contrast agent with an intravascular half-life of 14-15h, ideal for MRA acquisitions
in delayed phases [1,2]. However, care is required with dose and dilution due
to thrombus-mimicking artifacts that can arise due to the high transverse
relaxivity of the agent [3]. Indeed, different doses of ferumoxytol have been
reported when used for MRA [1,3,4]. The purpose of this study was to:
a) Qualitatively
compare ferumoxytol-enhanced MRA with gadolinium-enhanced MRA, b) Perform
a dose comparison/optimization for ferumoxytol with respect to image quality
and SNR performance and c) Perform
a flip-angle optimization for ferumoxytol-enhanced MRA.
Methods
After IRB approval and informed
consent, eight healthy volunteers (4 male, 4 female, mean age 47y) were
recruited for this study. Scanning was performed on a clinical 3T MRI system (MR750,
GE Healthcare). Ferumoxytol (Feraheme, AMAG-pharmaceuticals)-enhanced MRA was
performed one month after gadolinium (gadobenate-dimeglumine (Multihance),
Bracco)-enhanced MRA, which was acquired as the reference. The one month delay
was selected to ensure complete elimination of gadolinium from the body. For
the ferumoxytol scan, volunteers were randomly assigned to either 4mg/kg (0.07
mmol/kg, n=4) or 2mg/kg (0.035 mmol/kg, n=4).
First pass MRA using a standard spoiled-gradient-echo
MRA-sequence was performed with a flip angle (FA) of 50° for both
gadolinium- and ferumoxytol-enhanced MRA. After ferumoxytol administration, consecutive
MR images were acquired in steady state with decreasing flip angles down to 10°, in increments of 10°, while TR, TE and receiver
bandwidth were kept constant. Other parameters for the MRA acquisition
included: TR/TE = 4.54/1.40ms, BW = +/- 127 kHz, FOV = 400 x 360 x 320mm3,
224 x 160 x 160 matrix, for true spatial resolution interpolated to 0.8 x 0.7 x
1.1 mm3 through zero-filling. Relative SNR was calculated by
dividing the signal intensities of aorta and muscle (psoas muscle). SNR values for
gadobenate dimeglumine and the different ferumoxytol-doses were measured and analyzed
separately.
First pass ferumoxytol- and
gadolinium-enhanced MRA images were qualitatively evaluated in a blinded
fashion with respect to vessel contrast, artifacts and image quality on a
5-point-scale (5=excellent-1=not interpretable) by two radiologists with 7 and 10
years of experience, respectively.
Results
Relative SNR values are summarized
in Table 1 (in Figure 1). Relative SNR (aorta/muscle) of the first pass MRA
acquisitions was significantly higher with gadobenate dimeglumine compared to both 4mg/kg (p=0.01) and 2mg/kg (p=0.007). 4mg/kg revealed significantly
higher SNR than 2mg/kg (p=0.004). In
the portal-venous phase, relative SNR was not significantly higher using 4mg/kg
than gadobenate dimeglumine (p=0.7) and 2mg/kg (p=0.3). Relative SNR did not decrease
with ferumoxytol in the late phase 5 min post injection whereas SNR declined significantly
with gadobenate dimeglumine compared to 4mg (p=0.008)
and 2mg/kg (p=0.01, Fig.2). Mean values for vessel contrast,
artifacts and image quality are summarized in Table 2 (in Figure 1). Qualitative
evaluation revealed no significant differences between ferumoxytol- and
gadolinium-enhanced MRA for vessel contrast and image quality (Fig.2,3). Less
artifacts were reported for ferumoxytol-enhanced MRA (p=0.07). No significant
difference in vessel contrast (p=0.18),
artifacts (p=0.4) and image quality (p=0.4) was found between different
ferumoxytol doses.
The flip angle optimization of
ferumoxytol-enhanced MRA demonstrated the following results (Fig. 4): With 4mg/kg,
relative SNR (aorta/muscle) showed to be highest with a FA=40°(mean: 7.6,
StDev: 1.6), with 2mg/kg FA=40° and FA=30° revealed equally high values (mean: 5.2,
StDev: 0.45(40°)/0.9(30°)).
Discussion
Ferumoxytol used as MRA-contrast
agent based on its T1-shortening properties showed comparable qualitative performance
to gadobenate dimeglumine (Fig. 3) and could be utilized without relevant qualitative
penalty even with a dose of 2mg/kg. Furthermore, ferumoxytol is advantageous
for imaging at later phases due to its long intravascular half-life. SNR with 4mg
ferumoxytol/kg was higher than with 2mg ferumoxytol/kg. However, both compared
equally well with gadolinium-enhanced MRA. Flip angle optimization revealed slightly
different optima for 4mg ferumoxytol/kg (40°) and 2mg ferumoxytol/kg (30-40°).
Conclusion
Ferumoxytol for MRA achieved
equivalent image quality even with the lower dose of 2mg/kg in this study. In
order to achieve optimal results, the flip angle should be adapted to dose.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge support from the NIH
(UL1TR00427, R01 DK083380, R01 DK088925, R01 DK100651, K24 DK102595), as well
as GE Healthcare. This project was supported by the R&D program of our
department.References
1] Hope, AJR 2015
[2] Li, JMRI 2005
[3] Fananapazir, J
Vasc Interv Radiol 2014
[4] Walker, Ann
Vasc Surg. 2015