Esra Abaci Turk1, Filiz Yetisir2, Borjan Gagoski1, Bastien Guerin3,4, Natalie Copeland1, Lawrence Wald3,4,5, Elfar Adalsteinsson2,5, and P. Ellen Grant1
1Fetal-Neonatal Neuroimaging & Developmental Science Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States, 2Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States, 3Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States, 4A. A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, United States, 5Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States
Synopsis
Possible
temperature increase due to RF exposure during MRI scan of pregnant women can
be critical for the fetus. In this study, we perform electromagnetic and
temperature simulations using different pregnant women models with different
postures. We assess the
variability of in-utero RF induced heating in a 3T birdcage coil for different
models generated by segmenting structural MR images.
Purpose
Recently, 3T MRI has started to be used in cases where pregnant patient scans are required. To investigate the safety concern related
to the RF exposure to the fetus under this setting, several numerical studies were
done on pregnant body models at different gestational ages (GA).1-6
Unfortunately, all of these studies were conducted on the same reference body
model. In this study we argue that further analysis should be performed to
investigate the effect of maternal size and maternal position for better safety
management. To this end, we assess the local SAR exposures and the induced
temperature increase under 3T for various pregnant body models with different
postures.Method
For this study, we obtained consents from
two pregnant subjects, i.e. one high body mass index (BMI~45) subject at 28wks+2days
GA, and another with monochromic twin pregnancy at 27wks+6days GA, to
generate the models. As a third case, the whole-body pregnant model7 (26wks GA) developed by the National Institute of Information and Communications
Technology, Tokyo, and Chiba University was used. This model was previously
simulated by Hand et al.5 and in this study used as a simulation
reference.
Model generation:
MRIs were performed on a
3T Skyra scanner (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) using a combined
18-channel body matrix and 12-channel spine-receive arrays. Two sets of axial HASTE
images (resolution: 2.6x2.6x3 mm3, TR: 1600 ms, TE: 117 ms) with 124
slices each were acquired. 3D abdominal images were manually segmented to
identify different organs in 3D Slicer8 and then segmented organs
were interpolated to 2x2x2 mm3 resolution. After interpolation, 3 pixel
width smoothing was applied to each segmented organ. Further motion artifacts
at the organ boundaries were smoothened manually. High BMI and twin pregnancy
models included 24 and 30 tissues (i.e. maternal abdominal organs, muscle, fat,
skin, bone, aorta, vena cava, uterus, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord, fetus and
fetal brain), respectively.
Electromagnetic &
temperature simulations: Simulations were
performed in Sim4Life Version 3.0.1 (ZMT, Zurich, Switzerland). Each body model
was placed into a model of two-port, 32 rungs Siemens Skyra birdcage coil and
simulated using the circularly polarized mode (CP) excitation. Segmented models
were converted to voxel models and together with the tissue descriptor file
imported into Sim4Life. Figure 1 demonstrates the position of different models
within the coil such that the back (the side for left lateral case) of the models
were
always placed 20 cm away from the inner edge of the coil. In order
to compare the models, exposure configurations were normalized to the normal
operating mode, which is 2W/kg whole body average SAR (wbaSAR). By assuming the
main energy loss would be within the truncated region, whole body weights were
used for the normalization for the segmented models. To validate this
assumption, one of the truncated models was extended with additional segments and
simulated to reveal that only 2.1% of the total energy loss was measured at the
extended regions. For temperature simulations, previously suggested
perfusion parameters5 were used by assuming constant perfusion. External
air temperature was set as 25°C, while the initial temperatures were 37°C and
37.5°C for maternal and fetal tissues, respectively.5 Temperature
change was measured during 3600s where first 1800s was without exposure
and second 1800s was with the maximum allowed exposure at 2W/kg wbaSAR.Results and Discussion
As summarized in Table 1, for both high
BMI case and the left lateral positioning when the fetuses were closer to the
coil, higher SAR values were observed. More specifically, for twin pregnancy
model, higher SAR was measured for the twin closer to the coil. The maximum
local SAR was observed in the arm of the Japanese model. Although the arms were
not included to the other models, the highest maternal maximum local SAR was
observed in the high BMI model. Positioning of the fetuses were demonstrated within
|B1+| and local SAR maps in Figure 2.
Average temperature changes
along the 1800s 2W/kg exposure were shown in Figure 3. It is observed that
for high BMI and twin pregnancy models temperature increase faster. Note that,
further analysis should be performed by changing the maternal position in the xy-plane
and more realistic temperature models should be developed considering the thermoregulation
models and the perfusion changes within the uterus due to placental insufficiency
or fetal-maternal abnormalities.6,9Conclusion
In this study, we demonstrated that local SAR and temperature increase could
change with different maternal size, fetal and maternal positions. We emphasize
that to better understand MR safety during pregnancy, it is necessary to
perform analysis for different patient models.Acknowledgements
We
would like to thank Yigitcan Eryaman, PhD. This project is supported by NIH U01
HD087211 and NIH R01 EB017337.References
1. Hand JW, Li Y, Thomas EL, Rutherford MA,
Hajnal JV. Prediction of specific absorption rate in mother and fetus
associated with MRI examinations during pregnancy. Magnetic resonance in
medicine. 2006 Apr 1;55(4):883-93.
2. Pediaditis M, Leitgeb N, Cech R. RF-EMF
exposure of fetus and mother during magnetic resonance imaging. Physics in
medicine and biology. 2008 Nov 26;53(24):7187.
3. Nagaoka T, Saito K, Takahashi M, Ito K,
Watanabe S. Anatomically realistic reference models of pregnant women for
gestation ages of 13, 18, and 26 weeks. 30th Annual International
Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2008 Aug 20
(pp. 2817-2820).
4. Shamsi S, Chen J, Liu R, Kainz W. SAR
evaluation of pregnant woman models in 64 MHz MRI birdcage coil. IEEE
MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest 2006 Jun 11 (pp. 225-228).
5. Hand JW, Li Y, Hajnal JV. Numerical study of
RF exposure and the resulting temperature rise in the foetus during a magnetic
resonance procedure. Physics in medicine and biology. 2010 Jan 20;55(4):913.
6. Murbach M, Neufeld E, Samaras T, Córcoles J,
Robb FJ, Kainz W, Kuster N. Pregnant women models analyzed for RF exposure and
temperature increase in 3T RF shimmed birdcages. Magnetic resonance in
medicine. 2016 May 1.
7. Nagaoka T, Togashi T, Saito K, Takahashi M,
Ito K, Watanabe S. An anatomically realistic whole-body pregnant-woman model
and specific absorption rates for pregnant-woman exposure to electromagnetic
plane waves from 10 MHz to 2 GHz. Physics in medicine and biology. 2007 Oct
30;52(22):6731.
8. Fedorov A., Beichel R., Kalpathy-Cramer J.,
Finet J., Fillion-Robin J-C., Pujol S., Bauer C., Jennings D., Fennessy F.,
Sonka M., Buatti J., Aylward S.R., Miller J.V., Pieper S., Kikinis R. 3D
Slicer as an Image Computing Platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1323-41. PMID: 22770690.
9. Gowland PA, De Wilde J.
Temperature increase in the fetus due to radio frequency exposure during
magnetic resonance scanning. Physics in medicine and biology. 2008 Oct
8;53(21):L15.