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

IF 0.4 4区 化学 Q4 CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL
Jean-Philippe Dillenseger, C. Goetz, Amira Sayeh, P. Zorn, S. Kremer, Y. Rémond, A. Constantinesco, Gaëlle Aubertin-Kirch, P. Choquet
{"title":"Is Subcutaneous Route an Alternative to Intravenous Route for Mouse Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 T?","authors":"Jean-Philippe Dillenseger, C. Goetz, Amira Sayeh, P. Zorn, S. Kremer, Y. Rémond, A. Constantinesco, Gaëlle Aubertin-Kirch, P. Choquet","doi":"10.1155/2019/7428904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":55216,"journal":{"name":"Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7428904","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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.
小鼠对比增强磁共振成像1.5 T时皮下途径是静脉途径的替代选择吗?
本研究比较了小鼠的静脉(IV)和皮下(SC)途径的对比增强MRI (CE-MRI)。为此,我们选择了两种临床使用的造影剂。在1.5 T时对5只成年小鼠(Swiss, 41 g +/- 3 g)进行MRI采集。在每只动物上,通过静脉注射和SC给药Gd-DOTA或MS-325获得4次采集(每周1次采集)。每条路线注射0.1 mL NaCl和0.1 mL造影剂。每次采集,在2小时34分钟的时间内获取200张t1加权图像。对于不同的路径和造影剂,获得动态对比度增强(DCE)曲线。提取峰值时间(TTP)、摄取和冲洗等恒定时间值以及噪声对比比(CNR)。IV路TTP值Gd-DOTA为4.9 min, MS-325为5.4 min。Gd-DOTA组SC路线TTP为43.3 min, MS-325组为45.0 min。尽管恒定时间摄取较慢,但我们表明SC在小鼠临床前CE-MRI中是静脉注射途径的潜在有价值的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A brings together clinicians, chemists, and physicists involved in the application of magnetic resonance techniques. The journal welcomes contributions predominantly from the fields of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), but also encourages submissions relating to less common magnetic resonance imaging and analytical methods. Contributors come from academic, governmental, and clinical communities, to disseminate the latest important experimental results from medical, non-medical, and analytical magnetic resonance methods, as well as related computational and theoretical advances. Subject areas include (but are by no means limited to): -Fundamental advances in the understanding of magnetic resonance -Experimental results from magnetic resonance imaging (including MRI and its specialized applications) -Experimental results from magnetic resonance spectroscopy (including NMR, EPR, and their specialized applications) -Computational and theoretical support and prediction for experimental results -Focused reviews providing commentary and discussion on recent results and developments in topical areas of investigation -Reviews of magnetic resonance approaches with a tutorial or educational approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信