Magnetic Saturation and Field Dependency on Magnetic Susceptibility of Ferumoxytol
Jean-Christophe Brisset1, Pippa Storey1, Saifeng Liu2, E. Mark Haacke3, and Yulin Ge1

1Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States, 2The MRI Institute for Biomedical Research, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 3Radiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

Synopsis

The magnetization of diamagnetic and paramagnetic materials is proportional to the strength of the applied magnetic field, with a constant of proportionality (χ) known as the magnetic susceptibility. While the magnetization of ferromagnetic and superparamagnetic materials is much higher than that of diamagnetic and paramagnetic materials, it becomes saturated in strong magnetic fields. We show that the magnetization of USPIO agents such as Ferumoxytol saturates at around 1.5T. This introduces a perceived inverse correlation between apparent susceptibility and field strength. By contrast, the magnetization of GdDTPA is proportional to field strength up to 7T, as expected for a paramagnetic material.

Purpose

Ferumoxytol, an ultra-small-superparamagnetic-iron-oxide (USPIO), has been increasingly used as a blood pool contrast agent due to its high T1 and T2 relaxivities and for its strong susceptibility properties. The magnetization of Ferumoxytol, however, becomes saturated at field strengths above 1T introducing a perceived inverse correlation between field and apparent susceptibility. The goal of this study was to quantify the molar susceptibility of Ferumoxytol and Gadolinium at 1.5T, 3T and 7T.

Theory

Magnetic susceptibility “χ” is a quantitative measure of a material’s tendency to interact with and distort an applied magnetic field (1,2). The magnetization ($$$\overrightarrow{M}$$$) is usually determined by $$$\overrightarrow{M}=χ\overrightarrow{H}$$$, where $$$\overrightarrow{M}$$$ is the main field strength. If the material saturates then $$$\overrightarrow{M}$$$ will remain constant above that field strength (i.e., above 1T for Ferumoxytol (3)) and the change in local field variations with field will be invariant.

Methods

Measurement of susceptibility by QSM:

Susceptibility values were measured using quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) at 1.5T, 3.0T, and 7T MR and by fitting the difference of frequency during rotations of a cylinder. Two phantoms were made with 5 iron concentrations ranging from [0.11- 0.93] mmol.l‑1 and for Gd-DTPA from [0.05- 0.5 %]. Blood samples were analyzed before and after systemic injection at 4mgFe/kg of Ferumoxytol using QSM. Gradient echo images (TR/TE/ΔTE/FA/BW: 50/5/5.4/20/450; resolution: 0.5x0.5x2mm3) were acquired at 1.5T, 3T and 7T in order to quantify susceptibility.

QSM processing:

Phase images were unwrapped using a three-dimensional best path phase unwrapping algorithm (4) followed by background field removal using SHARP (5) to estimate the local magnetic field containing the local susceptibility sources. The QSM map was computed by solving the inverse field to source problem using SWIM (6).

Susceptibility measurement by tube rotation:

To validate the QSM measurements, magnetic susceptibility was also measured directly from the frequency changes induced in a long cylinder as it was rotated with respect to the applied field. Three 25mL pipettes (28cm long, 1.4cm inner diameter) were filled with [Fe]=0.35, 0.64 and 1.68 mmol.l-1 and placed sequentially in a circular water bath at 7 orientations relative to B0 between 0° and 90° and imaged with a 3D GRE sequence, 1mm isotropic resolution and 7 monopolar echoes (TE = 3 – 24.6ms). The frequency difference between the inside of the tube (from the lumen) and the water bath was measured for each orientation and fitted to the equation:

$$Δf = \frac {1}{2}.f0.Δχ.(\cos ^2(θ)-\frac {1}{3})$$

where f0 is the Larmor frequency in Hz and θ the angle relative to the main field B0. After the susceptibilities were measured, the molar susceptibility was calculated with a linear fit of the susceptibility in ppb and the [Fe] in mmol.l-1 (ie. mM).

Results

A representative example of susceptibility maps for a tube filled with Feraheme (middle range, [Fe]=0.49 mmol.l-1) at increasing static field was displayed with the same grayscale on Fig.1 with average values of the iron oxide 1015, 749 and 261 ppb at 1.5T, 3T and 7T. The measurements of the susceptibility values were repeated 3 times on different acquisitions for 5 dilutions and results were plotted against iron concentration (Fig. 2). The χmolar displayed an inverse correlation with field with values of 2089(ε2=0.99), 1109(ε2=0.95) and 526(ε2=0.98) ppb. mmol-1.l at 1.5T, 3T and 7T respectively. Measurement of magnetic susceptibility by tube rotation at 1.5T and 3T yielded values of χmolar = 2464 and 1051 ppb.mmol-1.l respectively, in good agreement with the QSM results(Fig. 3). No field dependence was observed for the susceptibility of GdDTPA (Fig. 4). The susceptibility of blood alone was independent of field strength, and equal to 678 ppb (± 36ppb), whereas the susceptibility of blood containing ferumoxytol was measured to be 4662, 2660 and 886 ppb at 1.5, 3 and 7T, respectively (Fig. 5).

Discussion

We have shown that the magnetization of ferumoxytol saturates above 1.5T giving a constant shift in local field independent of the static magnetic field. Our susceptibility measurements made with two independent methods and were in good agreement with each other and with the value of 1675ppm.mmol-1.l previously reported at 3T (7). By contrast, the susceptibility of blood alone was found to be independent of field, with a value of 678 ppb (±36ppb). Although it is well documented that the magnetization of USPIO materials saturates below 1T, researchers often fail to consider this when deciding on the best field strength at which to perform MRI exams involving USPIO agents. Furthermore, when quoting susceptibility for USPIO materials, it should be remembered that, if the usual expression for magnetization is used, it will appear as if susceptibility decreases with increasing field.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by NIH Grants (NS029029-20S1 and NS076588) and National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) research grant (RG 4707A), this study was also performed under the rubric of the Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R, www.cai2r.net), a NIBIB Biomedical Technology Resource Center (NIH P41 EB017183).

References

1. Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Magnetic resonance imaging: physical principles and sequence design: Wiley-Liss New York:; 1999.

2. Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Medical physics 1996;23(6):815-850.

3. Barick K, Aslam M, Lin Y-P, Bahadur D, Prasad PV, Dravid VP. Novel and efficient MR active aqueous colloidal Fe 3 O 4 nanoassemblies. Journal of Materials Chemistry 2009;19(38):7023-7029.

4. Abdul-Rahman HS, Gdeisat MA, Burton DR, Lalor MJ, Lilley F, Moore CJ. Fast and robust three-dimensional best path phase unwrapping algorithm. Appl Opt 2007;46(26):6623-6635.

5. Schweser F, Deistung A, Lehr BW, Reichenbach JR. Quantitative imaging of intrinsic magnetic tissue properties using MRI signal phase: an approach to in vivo brain iron metabolism? Neuroimage 2011;54(4):2789-2807.

6. Tang J, Neelavalli J, Liu S, Cheng Y-CN, Haacke EM. SWIM: Susceptibility Mapping as a Means to Visualize Veins and Quantify Oxygen Saturation. Susceptibility Weighted Imaging in MRI: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2011. p 461-485.

7. Tan H, Liu T, Wu Y, Thacker J, Shenkar R, Mikati AG, Shi C, Dykstra C, Wang Y, Prasad PV, Edelman RR, Awad IA. Evaluation of iron content in human cerebral cavernous malformation using quantitative susceptibility mapping. Investigative radiology 2014;49(7):498-504.

Figures

The measure of the susceptibility of [Fe]=0.49mmol.l;1 was 1015, 749 and 261 ppb at 1.5T, 3T and 7T respectively using 3D unwrapping, SHARP background removal and SWIM method.

Fig. 2: Molar susceptibility for iron using linear regression at 1.5T, 3T and 7T The molar susceptibilities χmolar were measured as 2089, 1109 and 526 ppb. mmol.l-1 at 1.5T, 3T and 7T respectively. All measures were an average over 3 independent scans.

Fig.3: Molar susceptibility measurement using linear regression model with rotation of a cylinder at 1.5T, 3T. Three tubes containing three increasing iron concentration were imaged with different angle relative to the main field. Molar susceptibility was measured at 2464 and 1051 ppb.mmol.l-1 at 1.5 and 3T respectively.

Fig. 4: Molar susceptibility using linear regression at 1.5T, 3T and 7T for GdTPA No linear field dependency was observed for GdTPA at these field strengths.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
2851