Home In Vitro MR Imaging of Renal Stones with an Ultra-short Echo Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sequence
Post
Cancel

In Vitro MR Imaging of Renal Stones with an Ultra-short Echo Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sequence

Objectives

To characterize the magnetic resonance (MR) relaxation times (ie, T1 and T2 relaxation times) of a variety of kidney stone specimens using an ultra-short echo time (UTE) sequence and to correlate these values to their size and composition based on chemical analysis.

Materials and Methods

This was an institutional review board–approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant study with waiver of informed consent. Between April 2009 and September 2009, stones from 36 patients underwent 1.5T MR imaging with two UTE pulse sequences to measure: 1) T2 relaxation times (repetition time [TR] = 1 second and multiple echo times [TEs] ranging from 0.1 ms up to 2 ms); 2) T1 relaxation times (TE = 0.1 ms and multiple TRs ranging from 500 ms to 2.5 seconds). A tube containing a solution of water and hydroxyapatite crystals near the stones served as reference standard. Results were compared to previous data obtained from experiments measuring the T1 and T2 of pure calcium oxalate and hydroxyapatite crystals suspended in water. Stones were submitted for chemical analysis. The stone size and composition was correlated to the relaxation time, and signal intensity.

Results

The average stone size was 0.86 cm (range 0.1–3.3 cm). Twenty-one stones were visible by MR. The average size of MR-visible stones was 1.1 cm (range 0.15–3.3 cm) compared to 0.46 cm (range 0.1–0.9) for nonvisible stones. The mean T1 and T2 of MR-visible stones were 950 ms (range 138–3000 ms) and 3.12 ms (range 0.27–12 ms), respectively. The T1 (mean 1143, range 740–1583) and T1 (mean 8.31, range 4.6–12) values of calcium phosphate were longer than that for other stone compositions T1 (mean 953, range 138–3000) and T2 (mean 2.58, range 0.27–5.8; P < .05).

Conclusions

The T1- and T2-relaxation times of kidney stones are variable and depend on their composition and the size of the stones. UTE MR allows for visualization of renal stones in vitro.

In 2005, Pearle et al estimated that the cost of treating urolithiasis was in excess of 2.1 billion dollars in the United States alone . Approximately 13% of men and 7% of women will present with a kidney stone at some point in their lives, and these numbers appear to be increasing . Moreover, the likelihood of developing a second stone has been estimated to be as high as 50% at 5 years. Overall, kidney stones are predominantly composed of calcium oxalate (70%) and calcium phosphate (10%), with uric acid representing about 5%. The composition of a kidney stone can vary with age and sex. Costa-Bauza et al have reported that the number of calcium oxalate monohydrate stones increased with age, and the number of uric acid stones increases in age in both genders . The chemical composition of the stone is important in choosing which preventive therapy might be most efficacious, because different conditions underlying stone formation (eg, increased urinary oxalate concentration) would be treated differently.

Imaging has played an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and management of patients with renal stones. The ability of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) to visualize small calcium containing stones has led to its use in evaluating patients with suspected renal colic . Although there have been concerted efforts aimed at reducing the radiation dose associated with MDCT, many of these patients will present with recurring symptoms potentially resulting in high cumulative exposures to radiation.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Materials and methods

Crystals Imaging by MRI

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

In Vitro MRI of Renal Stones

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 1, Signal intensity changes with repetition time (TR). Note the fitted curves. T 1 is calculated as 580 for this stone.

Figure 2, Signal intensity changes with echo time (TE). Note the fitted curves. T 2 measures 2.2 for this stone.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Chemical Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Data Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Crystals Imaging by MRI

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

In Vitro MRI of Renal Stones

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 3, Axial ultra-short echo time magnetic resonance images (repetition time = 1 second, echo time = 100 ms) of five stones ( middle ) as compared to hydroxyapatite crystals (HA) ( left ). The signal intensity (SI) ratio (ie, SI stone/SI HA) was 0.97. Micro-computed tomography image of the same stones ( right ). These stones were composed of pure calcium oxalate.

Figure 4, Axial ultra-short echo time magnetic resonance image (repetition time = 1 second, echo time = 100 ms) of a kidney stone ( left ). Micro-computed tomography image of the same stone ( right ). This stone was a mixed stone composed of calcium oxalate monohydrate 60%, calcium oxalate dihydrate 10%, and calcium phosphate (carbonate-apatite) 30%.

Figure 5, Box-and-whisker plot showing the size criteria of the stones that were visualized by ultra-short echo time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (1) versus the nonvisualized stones (0). Note the threshold for visualization 0.9 cm. The horizontal bars represent the range. The red box represents the 25th and 75th percentiles .

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 6, Variability chart for size versus the composition of each stone. The dots represent the individual stones and the bars represent the range . CaOx, calcium oxalate; CaP, calcium phosphate; UA, uric acid.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 7, Variability chart for signal intensity (SI) ratio, SI stone/SI hydroxyapatite versus type of stones. CaOx, calcium oxalate; CaP, calcium phosphate; UA, uric acid.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 8, Variability chart for T 1 relaxation values for each type of stone. CaOx, calcium oxalate; CaP, calcium phosphate; UA, uric acid.

Figure 9, Variability chart for T 2 relaxation values for each type of stone. Note the longer T 2 values of calcium phosphate as compared to other components. CaOx, calcium oxalate; CaP, calcium phosphate; UA, uric acid.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 1

Characteristics of Visualized Stones by MRI

Stone Size (cm) Composition MR Description T1 T2 SI Stone/SI HA 1 0.15 CaOx 97% CaOx 623 2.02 0.64 2 0.2 Proteinaceous stone Other 1026 3.16 0.19 3 0.3 CaOxm 40%CaOx d 55% CaOx 493 2.71 0.59 4 0.3 CaOxm 60%Carb ap 40% CaOx 253 0.68 0.04 5 0.3 CaOx 100% CaOx 373 1.32 0.04 6 0.4 CaOxm 40%Carb ap 40% CaOx 774 2.23 0.53 7 0.4 CaOx 100% CaOx 347 1.29 0.02 8 0.5 UA 100% UA N/A 1.34 0.47 9 0.6 CaOxm 70%CaOx d 25% CaOx 2684 0.41 0.26 10 0.7 UA 100% UA 174 1.08 0.56 11 0.9 UA 100% UA 528 4.06 0.15 12 1.3 Struvite 60% carbapatite 40% Struvite 138 7.08 0.46 13 1.3 Brushite 80% CaP 1583 12 0.42 14 1.5 CaOxm 70%CaOx d 20% CaOx 1955 2.42 0.06 15 1.5 CaOxm 90%CaOx d 10% CaOx N/A 3.15 0.97 16 1.6 CaOxm 60%Carb ap 30% CaOx 3000 5.8 1.07 17 1.9 UA 95% UA 1258 4.85 0.26 18 2.2 CaOx 100% CaOx 625 2.95 0.4 19 2.5 Brushite 95% CaP 704 4.62 0.41 20 2.5 CaOxm 50%CaOx d 40% CaOx 581 2.24 0.8 21 3.3 Struvite 40% carbapatite 60% Struvite 1382 0.27 0.12

AP, apatite; CaOx, calcium oxalate monohydrate; CaOxd, calcium oxalate dihydrate; CaP, calcium phosphate; UA, uric acid.

T 1 and T 2 are measured in milliseconds.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Discussion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

  • 1. Pearle M.S., Calhoun E.A., Curhan G.C.: Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol 2005; 173: pp. 848-857.

  • 2. Coe F.L., Evan A., Worcester E.: Kidney stone disease. J Clin Invest 2005; 115: pp. 2598-2608.

  • 3. Costa-Bauza A., Ramis M., Montesinos V., et. al.: Type of renal calculi: variation with age and sex. World J Urol 2007; 25: pp. 415-421.

  • 4. Ketelslegers E., Van Beers B.E.: Urinary calculi: improved detection and characterization with thin-slice multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: pp. 161-165.

  • 5. Robson M.D., Bydder G.M.: Clinical ultrashort echo time imaging of bone and other connective tissues. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: pp. 765-780.

  • 6. Brossmann J., Frank L.R., Pauly J.M., et. al.: Short echo time projection reconstruction MR imaging of cartilage: comparison with fat-suppressed spoiled GRASS and magnetization transfer contrast MR imaging. Radiology 1997; 203: pp. 501-507.

  • 7. Bergin C.J., Glover G.H., Pauly J.M.: Lung parenchyma: magnetic susceptibility in MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 180: pp. 845-848.

  • 8. Gold G.E., Pauly J.M., Glover G.H., et. al.: Characterization of atherosclerosis with a 1.5-T imaging system. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993; 3: pp. 399-407.

  • 9. Gold G.E., Pauly J.M., Leung A.N., et. al.: Short echo time MR spectroscopic imaging of the lung parenchyma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 15: pp. 679-684.

  • 10. Du J.A., Corbeil J., Znamirowski R., et. al.: Direct Imaging and Quantification of Carotid Plaque Calcification. Magn Reson Med 2011; 65: pp. 1013-1020.

  • 11. Niall O., Russell J., MacGregor R., et. al.: A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. J Urol 1999; 161: pp. 534-537.

  • 12. Robson M.D., Gatehouse P.D., Bydder M., et. al.: Magnetic resonance: an introduction to ultrashort TE (UTE) imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27: pp. 825-846.

  • 13. Coll D.M., Varanelli M.J., Smith R.C.: Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: pp. 101-103.

  • 14. Auge B.K., Preminger G.M.: Surgical management of urolithiasis. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2002; 31: pp. 1065-1082.

  • 15. Ferrandino M.N., Pierre S.A., Simmons W.N., et. al.: Dual-energy computed tomography with advanced postimage acquisition data processing: improved determination of urinary stone composition. J Endourol 2010; 24: pp. 347-354.

  • 16. Boll D.T., Patil N.A., Paulson E.K., et. al.: Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition—pilot study. Radiology 2009; 250: pp. 813-820.

  • 17. Graser A., Johnson T.R., Bader M., et. al.: Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol 2008; 43: pp. 112-119.

  • 18. Grosjean R., Sauer B., Guerra R.M., et. al.: Characterization of human renal stones with MDCT: advantage of dual energy and limitations due to respiratory motion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: pp. 720-728.

  • 19. Zarse C.A., Hameed T.A., Jackson M.E., et. al.: CT visible internal stone structure, but not Hounsfield unit value, of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) calculi predicts lithotripsy fragility in vitro. Urol Res 2007; 35: pp. 201-206.

  • 20. Preminger G.M., Tiselius H.G., Assimos D.G., et. al.: Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 2007; 52: pp. 1610-1631.

  • 21. Hall P.M.: Nephrolithiasis: treatment, causes, and prevention. Cleve Clin J Med 2009; 76: pp. 583-591.

  • 22. Klee L.W., Brito C.G., Lingeman J.E.: The clinical implications of brushite calculi. J Urol 1991; 145: pp. 715-718.

  • 23. Ferrandino M.N., Bagrodia A., Pierre S.A., et. al.: Radiation exposure in the acute and short-term management of urolithiasis at 2 academic centers. J Urol 2009; 181: pp. 668-672. discussion 673

  • 24. Chappell K.E., Patel N., Gatehouse P.D., et. al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of 2the liver with ultrashort TE (UTE) pulse sequences. J Magn Res Imaging 2003; 18: pp. 709-713.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.