Preview

Вестник рентгенологии и радиологии

Расширенный поиск

К вопросу о стандартизации МРТ-исследований с использованием автоматического инъектора для введения магнитно-резонансных контрастных средств

https://doi.org/10.20862/0042-4676-2020-101-4-235-243

Полный текст:

Аннотация

Одной из важных задач в лучевой диагностике для получения стандартизированных данных и корректной оценки их в динамике у одного и того же пациента является воспроизводимость условий, используемых при сканировании, особенно в магнитно-резонансной томографии. Важным аспектом является использование автоматического инъектора для введения магнитно-резонансных контрастных средств. В статье рассмотрены аспекты получения стандартизированных результатов с использованием автоматического  инъектора при выполнении стандартного контрастирования с применением субтракции, динамического контрастного усиления, магнитно-резонансной ангиографии и перфузии.

Об авторе

В. А. Фокин
ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр им В.А. Алмазова» Минздрава России
Россия

д. м. н, профессор кафедры лучевой диагностики и медицинской визуализации, заведующий отделом лучевой диагностики

ул. Аккуратова, 2, Санкт-Петербург, 197341, Российская Федерация



Список литературы

1. Endrikat J, Barbati R, Scarpa M, Jost G, Uber AE 3rd. Accuracy and repeatability of automated injector versus manual administration of an MRI contrast agent – results of a laboratory study. Invest Radiol. 2018; 53(1): 1–5. doi: 10.1097/rli.0000000000000403

2. Hubbard C, Kocher MR, Hardie AD. The use of MRI digital subtraction technique in the diagnosis of traumatic pancreatic injury. Radiol Case Rep. 2019; 14(5): 639–45. doi: 10.1016/j.radcr.2019.03.003

3. Papini GD, Di Leo G, Tritella S, Nano G, Cotticelli B, Clemente C, et al. Evaluation of inflammatory status of atherosclerotic carotid plaque before thromboendarterectomy using delayed contrast-enhanced subtracted images after magnetic resonance angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 80(3): e373-e380. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.029

4. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(33): 8469–76. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960

5. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet. 2005; 365(9473): 1769–78. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1

6. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Peeters PH, Monninkhof EM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(22): 2091–102. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903986

7. Клинические рекомендации. Рак молочной железы. Министерство здравоохранения Российской Федерации. 2020. URL: http: //cr.rosminzdrav.ru/#!/schema/236 (дата обращения 17.07.2020).

8. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, Decker T, Federico M, Gilbert FJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46(8): 1296–316. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015

9. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Hendrick RE, Helvie MA, Moy L, Monsees B, et al. Breast cancer screening for average- risk women: recommendations from the ACR commission on breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14(9): 1137–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.06.001

10. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher- thanaverage risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15(3 Pt A): 408–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034

11. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013. Available at: https: //www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Bi-Rads (accessed July 17, 2020)

12. Neri E, Bali MA, Ba-Ssalamah A, Boraschi P, Brancatelli G, Caseiro Alves F, et al. ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(4): 921–31. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3900-3

13. Zech CJ, Ba-Ssalamah A, Berg T, Chandarana H, Chau GY, Grazioli L, et al. Consensus report from the 8th international forum for liver magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30(1): 370–82. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06369-4

14. Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB. CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: part I. Development, growth, and spread: key pathologic and imaging aspects. Radiology. 2014; 272(3): 635–54. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132361

15. van Montfoort JE, Stieger B, Meijer DK, Weinmann HJ, Meier PJ, Fattinger KE. Hepatic uptake of the magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent gadoxetate by the organic anion transporting polypeptide OATP1. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999; 290(1): 153–7.

16. Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics. 2009; 29(6): 1725–48. doi: 10.1148/rg.296095515

17. Brodsky EK, Bultman EM, Johnson KM, Horng DE, Schelman WR, Block WF, Reeder SB. High-spatial and high-temporal resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion imaging of the liver with time-resolved three-dimensional radial MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2014; 71(3): 934–41. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24727

18. Welker K, Boxerman J, Kalnin XA, Kaufmann T, Shiroishi M, Wintermark M. ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. Am J Neuroradiol. 2015; 36(6): E41–51. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4341

19. Essig M, Shiroishi MS, Nguyen TB, Saake M, Provenzale JM, Enterline D, et al. Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked technical questions. Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200(1): 24–34. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9543

20. Paldino MJ, Barboriak DP. Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009; 17(2): 277–89. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2009.01.007

21. American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Cerebrovascular disease. 2016. Available at: https: //acsearch.acr.org/docs/69478/Narrative/ (accessed July 17, 2020).

22. American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Suspected thoracic aortic aneurysm. 2017. Available at: https: //acsearch.acr.org/docs/3099659/Narrative/ (accessed July 17, 2020).

23. American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: interventional planning and follow-up. 2017. Available at: https: //acsearch.acr.org/docs/70548/Narrative/ (accessed July 17, 2020).

24. Solar M, Zizka J, Krajina A, Michl A, Raupach J, Klzo L, et al. Comparison of duplex ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of significant renal artery stenosis. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove). 2011; 54(1): 9–12. doi: 10.14712/18059694.2016.10

25. American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Renovascular hypertension. 2017. Available at: https: //acsearch.acr.org/docs/69374/Narrative/ (accessed July 17, 2020).

26. Husarik DB, Bashir MR, Weber PW, Nichols EB, Howle LE, Merkle EM, Nelson RC. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography first-pass arterial enhancement as a function of gadolinium-chelate concentration, and the saline chaser volume and injection rate. Invest Radiol. 2012; 47(2): 121–7. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182300603

27. Tsuboyama T, Jost G, Pietsch H, Tomiyama N. Comparison of power versus manual injection in bolus shape and image quality on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Invest Radiol. 2017; 52(9): 547–53. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000383

28. Jost G, Endrikat J, Pietsch H. The impact of injector- based contrast agent administration on bolus shape and magnetic resonance angiography image quality. Magn Reson Insights. 2017; 10: 1178623x17705894. doi: 10.1177/1178623X17705894


Для цитирования:


Фокин В.А. К вопросу о стандартизации МРТ-исследований с использованием автоматического инъектора для введения магнитно-резонансных контрастных средств. Вестник рентгенологии и радиологии. 2020;101(4):235-243. https://doi.org/10.20862/0042-4676-2020-101-4-235-243

For citation:


Fokin V.A. Standardization of MRI Studies Using an Automatic Magnetic Resonance Contrast Agent Injector. Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine. 2020;101(4):235-243. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20862/0042-4676-2020-101-4-235-243

Просмотров: 64


ISSN 0042-4676 (Print)
ISSN 2619-0478 (Online)