Home The Effect of Susceptibility of Gadolinium Contrast Media on Diffusion-weighted Imaging and the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient
Post
Cancel

The Effect of Susceptibility of Gadolinium Contrast Media on Diffusion-weighted Imaging and the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

Posted Jun 30, 2008 Updated Apr 7, 2023
By Akio Ogura MS , Katsumi Hayakawa MD , Tosiaki Miyati PhD , Fumie Maeda RT
5 min read

Rationale and Objectives

The development of parallel magnetic resonance imaging has resulted in the frequent use of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in clinical medicine, which usually involves the use of contrast medium. However, gadolinium (Gd) contrast medium may have some effect on DWI and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). The present study was performed to determine whether the magnetic susceptibility of contrast medium alters the DWI signal and the value of ADC in some imaging techniques.

Materials and Methods

Nonfat suppression DWI, short-time inversion recovery (STIR) combination, and chemical shift selective (CHESS) combination DWI were performed to examine 10 phantoms with gadolinium-meglumine gadopentetate (Gd-DTPA) dissolved at concentrations from 0.0005 to 0.1 mmol in physiologic saline as a contrast medium. The average pixel value and ADC of each method were determined.

Results

ADC showed no differences between before and after treatment with contrast medium for all imaging techniques with Gd considered distributed over the whole tumor. The signal intensity did not change on nonfat suppression or CHESS combination DWI, but deteriorated on STIR.

Conclusions

ADC was not influenced by the magnetic susceptibility of contrast medium. In addition, it was suggested that the ability of tumor detection may be reduced if STIR is used as fat suppression.

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has contributed to diagnosis as a new complement to magnetic resonance imaging. In particular, it has become the most important imaging technique in the diagnosis of acute stroke. With the recent development of parallel magnetic resonance imaging, DWI has often been used in clinical medicine to both search for tumors and as a discrimination diagnosis ( ).

However, the application of DWI in routine clinical examinations has not been established; therefore, DWI is often performed after use of contrast medium. There is concern regarding whether gadolinium (Gd) contrast medium influences the DWI signal and the value of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC).

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<

Materials and methods

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, T1-weighted image and diffusion-weighted imaging of the nine phantoms that dissolved in physiologic saline from 0.0005 to 0.1 mmol in gadolinium-meglumine gadopentetate into a water tank.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 2, Quantity of gadolinium distribution before and after contrast medium for 20 meningiomas and 20 metastases to the brain. The quantity of gadolinium-meglumine gadopentetate (Gd-DTPA) distribution to a tumor by the contrast media dosage was estimated to be 0.001–0.005 mmol.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 3, The pixel value of 10 phantoms that dissolved in physiologic saline from 0.0005 to 0.1 mmol in gadolinium-meglumine gadopentetate (Gd-DTPA) were performed on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) nonfat suppression, short-time inversion recovery (STIR) combination DWI, and chemical shift selective (CHESS) combination DWI in b = 1000 × 10 −3 sec/mm 2 in a motion-probing gradient. Both nonfat suppression DWI and CHESS combination DWI showed similar signal intensity for gadolinium density. Signal value did not show a change to gadolinium density of 0.005 mmol, but showed a tendency to fall when density increased to more than 0.005 mmol.

Figure 4, A value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) that calculated the motion-probing gradient from b = 0, 500, 1000 × 10 −3 sec/mm 2 in three imaging techniques of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) that nonfat suppression DWI, short-time inversion recovery (STIR) DWI, and chemical shift selective (CHESS) DWI using 10 phantoms that dissolved in a physiology solution of salt to 0.0005–0.1 mmol. Gd-DPTA, gadolinium-meglumine gadopenetate.

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<

Figure 5, Images using CHESS diffusion-weighted imaging before and after contrasting of meningiomas on the brain. Signal intensity shows that there were no changes before and after administration of contrast medium.

Figure 6, Images using STIR diffusion-weighted imaging before (STIR-Pre) and after use of contrast medium (STIR-CE)on a brain tumor. Signal intensity after contrast medium use decreased significantly compared to before administration of the contrast medium.

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<

Conclusions

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. Takahara T., Imai Y., Yamashita T., et. al.: Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med 2004; 22: pp. 275-282.

  • 2. Nasu K., Kuroki Y., Nawano S., et. al.: Hepatic metastases: diffusion weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2006; 239: pp. 122-130.

  • 3. Moteki T., Ishizuka H.: Diffusion-weighted EPI of cystic ovarian lesions: evaluation of cystic contents using apparent diffusion coefficients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: pp. 1014-1019.

  • 4. Moteki T., Horikoshi H., Endo K.: Diffusion coefficient and signal intensity in endometrial and other pelvic cysts. Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 20: pp. 463-470.

  • 5. Sato C., Naganawa S., Nakamura T., et. al.: Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 21: pp. 258-262.

  • 6. Shimofusa R., Fujimoto H., Akamoto H., et. al.: Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer. J Compt Assist Tomogr 2005; 29: pp. 149-153.

  • 7. Naganawa S., Sato C., Kumada H., et. al.: Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: pp. 71-78.

  • 8. Hosseinzadeh K., Schwarz S.D.: Endorectal diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: pp. 654-661.

  • 9. Naganawa S., Kawai H., Fukatsu H., et. al.: Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: technical challenges and prospects for the future. Magn Reson Med Sci 2005; 4: pp. 175-186.

  • 10. Pickles MD, Gibbs P, Sreenivas M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 20006; 23:130–134.

  • 11. Koinuma M., Ohashi I., Hanafusa K., et. al.: Apparent diffusion coefficient measurements with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of hepatic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: pp. 80-85.

  • 12. Sun X.J., Quan X.Y., Huang F.H., et. al.: Quantitative evaluation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of focal hepatic lesions. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: pp. 6535-6537.

  • 13. Yoshikawa T., Kawamitsu H., Mitchell D.G., et. al.: ADC measurement of abdominal organs and lesions using parallel imaging technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: pp. 522-1530.

  • 14. Dose M.D., Zhong J., Gore J.C.: In vivo measurement of ADC change due to intravascular susceptibility variation. Magn Reson Med 1999; 41: pp. 236-240.

  • 15. Zhong J., Kennan R.P., Fulbringht R.K., et. al.: Quantification of intravascular and extravascular contributions to bold effects induced by alteration in oxygenation or intravascular contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 1998; 40: pp. 526-536.

  • 16. Yamada K., Kubota H., Kizu O., et. al.: Effect of intravenous gadolinium-DTPA on diffusion weighted images. Stroke 2002; 33: pp. 1799-1802.

  • 17. Chen G., Jespersen S.N., Pedersen M., et. al.: Intravenous administration of Gd-DTPA prior to DWI does not affect the apparent diffusion constant. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23: pp. 685-689.

Academic Radiology, Volume 15, Issue 7
Journals General Radiology
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.
Recently Updated
Contents