Coregistration of datasets from a micro-SPECT/CT and a preclinical 1.5T MRI

Dillenseger, Jean-Philippe; Guillaud, B.; Goetz, Christian; Sayeh, Amira; Schimpf, Rémy; Constantinesco, A.; Choquet, Philippe

doi:10.1016/j.nima.2012.08.023

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following IV administration, MS-325 binds reversibly to endogenous serum albumin resulting in longer vascular residence time than non-protein binding contrast agents. The binding to serum albumin also increases the magnetic resonance relaxivity and decreases the relaxation time (T1) of water protons in the vicinity (32)(33)(34)(35)(36) resulting in an increase in signal intensity of blood in T1weighted sequences. In human studies, gadofosveset substantially shortened blood T1 values for up to 4 hours after IV bolus injection [24].…”

Section: Vasovist (Ms-325) Ms-325 (Vasovist Bayer Scheringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nowadays, multimodal preclinical platforms with MRI and SPECT or PET are expanding rapidly. They are designed with separated apparatus [32,33] or combined apparatus [4,5]. In this context, in order to save the use of the tail veins exclusively for radioactive tracer administration for SPECT or PET imaging, the question we seek to answer is whether the SC route could be an alternative to an IV injection during multimodal proceedings involving T1w MRI acquisitions.…”

Section: Tail Puncture In Micementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Subcutaneous Route an Alternative to Intravenous Route for Mouse Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 T?

Dillenseger

Goetz

Sayeh

et al. 2019

Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present work compares intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) routes for contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in mice. For that purpose, we selected two contrast media used in clinical practice. MRI acquisitions were performed at 1.5 T on five adult mice (Swiss, 41 g +/-3 g). On each animal, four acquisitions were achieved with IV and SC administration of either Gd-DOTA or MS-325 (1 acquisition per week). For each route, 0.1 mL of NaCl and 0.1 mL of contrast agent were injected. For each acquisition, 200 T1-weighted images were acquired in a 2 h 34 min time lapse. For each route and contrast medium, dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) curves were obtained. Time-to-peak (TTP), uptake, and washout constant-time values and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were extracted. IV route TTP value was 4.9 min with Gd-DOTA and 5.4 min with MS-325. SC route TTP was 43.3 min with Gd-DOTA and 45.0 min with MS-325. Despite slower uptake constant-time, we show that SC is a potentially valuable alternative to the IV route in mouse preclinical CE-MRI.

show abstract

Section: Vasovist (Ms-325) Ms-325 (Vasovist Bayer Scheringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tail Puncture In Micementioning

confidence: 99%

Is Subcutaneous Route an Alternative to Intravenous Route for Mouse Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 T?

Dillenseger

Goetz

Sayeh

et al. 2019

Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A common landmark coregistration system consisting of a catheter fixed on a flexible plastic sheet placed between the imaging cell bed and the animal (mouse) was used. 8 As only CT was involved in coregistration, the system was filled with iodine solution. Fiducial markers (n ¼ 8) were positioned manually on the system [ Fig.…”

Section: Multimodal Coregistration Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3][4][5] Imaging cells can be shared by different imaging systems, limiting manipulation of animals between the different devices and facilitating multimodal combinations. 3,6,7 The side-by-side configuration 8,9 requires a multimodal compatible imaging cell that can be easily, rigidly, and reproducibly docked on the different imaging devices. It is manually moved from one device to another with acquisitions being performed sequentially.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of subject coregistration errors during multimodal preclinical imaging using separate instruments: origins and avoidance of artifacts

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use high-resolution [Formula: see text] data in multiple experiments to estimate the sources of error during coregistration of images acquired on separate preclinical instruments. In combination with experiments with phantoms, we completed imaging on mice, aimed at identifying the possible sources of registration errors, caused either by transport of the animal, movement of the animal itself, or methods of coregistration. The same imaging cell was used as a holder for phantoms and animals. For all procedures, rigid coregistration was carried out using a common landmark coregistration system, placed inside the imaging cell. We used the fiducial registration error and the target registration error to analyze the coregistration accuracy. We found that moving an imaging cell between two preclinical devices during a multimodal procedure gives an error of about [Formula: see text] at most. Therefore, it could not be considered a source of coregistration errors. Errors linked to spontaneous movements of the animal increased with time, to nearly 1 mm at most, excepted for body parts that were properly restrained. This work highlights the importance of animal intrinsic movements during a multiacquisition procedure and demonstrates a simple method to identify and quantify the sources of error during coregistration.

show abstract

“…For the CT unit "Explore CT 120", it is constituted by an X-ray high efficiency tube of 5 kW whose voltage can vary between 70 and 120 kV and is attached to a planar array of CCD detectors 3500 × 2300. The X-ray beam used for the micro-CT unit is conical [2]. Acquisitions can also be done on a micro-PET/CT system with the same protocol because micro-PET and micro-SPECT are both nuclear tomographic imaging techniques with low differences between their principle quality parameters [16].…”

Section: Image Acquisitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design, Realization and Implementation of a Novel Phantom for Quality Control of Micro-SPECT/CT and Micro-PET/CT Systems

Besbes¹,

Krid²,

Solaiman³

2015

JBiSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proposed phantom is designed for the quality control of micro-SPECT/CT and micro-PET/CT systems. However, it is an assembly of six patterns stored in a cylindrical box enabling to control both micro-SPECT unit in terms of uniformity, spatial linearity and spatial resolution and micro-CT unit in terms of uniformity, spatial linearity, spatial resolution, diffusion rate, low contrast detectability, Hounsfield unit linearity and slice thickness. The construction material is Plexiglas. As for the implementation, it was made on a micro-SPECT/CT machine of the type "speCZT eXplore CT 120". Compared to the NEMA NU 4-2008 image quality phantom, this phantom offers micro-CT quality control and is more efficient in control of spatial resolution for micro-SPECT and micro-PET systems.

show abstract

Coregistration of datasets from a micro-SPECT/CT and a preclinical 1.5T MRI

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Is Subcutaneous Route an Alternative to Intravenous Route for Mouse Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 T?

Is Subcutaneous Route an Alternative to Intravenous Route for Mouse Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 T?

Estimation of subject coregistration errors during multimodal preclinical imaging using separate instruments: origins and avoidance of artifacts

Design, Realization and Implementation of a Novel Phantom for Quality Control of Micro-SPECT/CT and Micro-PET/CT Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About