Enhancement Effect of Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticle-Based MRI Contrast Agent at Different Concentrations and Magnetic Field Strengths

Authors: Bimali Sanjeevani Weerakoon, Toshiaki Osuga, Takehisa Konishi

Abstract:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents (MRI-CM) are significant in the clinical and biological imaging as they have the ability to alter the normal tissue contrast, thereby affecting the signal intensity to enhance the visibility and detectability of images. Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles, coated with dextran or carboxydextran are currently available for clinical MR imaging of the liver. Most SPIO contrast agents are T2 shortening agents and Resovist (Ferucarbotran) is one of a clinically tested, organ-specific, SPIO agent which has a low molecular carboxydextran coating. The enhancement effect of Resovist depends on its relaxivity which in turn depends on factors like magnetic field strength, concentrations, nanoparticle properties, pH and temperature. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the impact of field strength and different contrast concentrations on enhancement effects of Resovist. The study explored the MRI signal intensity of Resovist in the physiological range of plasma from T2-weighted spin echo sequence at three magnetic field strengths: 0.47 T (r1=15, r2=101), 1.5 T (r1=7.4, r2=95), and 3 T (r1=3.3, r2=160) and the range of contrast concentrations by a mathematical simulation. Relaxivities of r1 and r2 (L mmol-1 Sec-1) were obtained from a previous study and the selected concentrations were 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 mmol/L. T2-weighted images were simulated using TR/TE ratio as 2000 ms /100 ms. According to the reference literature, with increasing magnetic field strengths, the r1 relaxivity tends to decrease while the r2 did not show any systematic relationship with the selected field strengths. In parallel, this study results revealed that the signal intensity of Resovist at lower concentrations tends to increase than the higher concentrations. The highest reported signal intensity was observed in the low field strength of 0.47 T. The maximum signal intensities for 0.47 T, 1.5 T and 3 T were found at the concentration levels of 0.05, 0.06 and 0.05 mmol/L, respectively. Furthermore, it was revealed that, the concentrations higher than the above, the signal intensity was decreased exponentially. An inverse relationship can be found between the field strength and T2 relaxation time, whereas, the field strength was increased, T2 relaxation time was decreased accordingly. However, resulted T2 relaxation time was not significantly different between 0.47 T and 1.5 T in this study. Moreover, a linear correlation of transverse relaxation rates (1/T2, s–1) with the concentrations of Resovist can be observed. According to these results, it can conclude that the concentration of SPIO nanoparticle contrast agents and the field strengths of MRI are two important parameters which can affect the signal intensity of T2-weighted SE sequence. Therefore, when MR imaging those two parameters should be considered prudently.

Keywords: Concentration, Resovist, Field strength, Relaxivity, Signal intensity.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1338668

References:

[1] W. Bauer and K. Schculten, “Theory of contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging: coupling of spin relaxation and transport,” Magnetic resonance in medicine, vol. 26. pp. 16–39, 1992.
[2] C. F. G. C. Geraldes and S. Laurent, “Classification and basic properties of contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging,” Contrast Media Mol. Imaging, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2009.
[3] T.-H. Shin, Y. Choi, S. Kim, and J. Cheon, “Recent advances in magnetic nanoparticle-based multi-modal imaging,” Chem. Soc. Rev., vol. 44, no. 14, pp. 4501–4516, 2015.
[4] M. A. Busquets, J. Estelrich, and M. J. Sánchez-Martín, “Nanoparticles in magnetic resonance imaging: from simple to dual contrast agents,” Int. J. Nanomedicine, vol. 140, no. 10, pp. 1727–1741, 2015.
[5] M. Rohrer, H. Bauer, J. Mintorovitch, M. Requardt, and H.-J. Weinmann, “Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths.,” Invest. Radiol., vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 715–724, 2005.
[6] A. Bjørnerud, “The Physics of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Department of Physics,” no. March, 2008.
[7] J. Huang, X. Zhong, L. Wang, L. Yang, and H. Mao, “Improving the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast and Detection Methods with Engineered Magnetic Nanoparticles,” Theranostics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 86– 102, 2012.
[8] N. Arsalani, H. Fattahi, and M. Nazarpoor, “Synthesis and characterization of PVP-functionalized superparamagnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles as an MRI contrast agent,” eXPRESS Polym. Lett., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 329–338, Jun. 2010.
[9] S. Riyahi-Alam, S. Haghgoo, E. Gorji, and N. Riyahi-Alam, “Size reproducibility of gadolinium oxide based nanomagnetic particles for cellular magnetic resonance imaging: effects of functionalization, chemisorption and reaction conditions.,” Iran. J. Pharm. Res. IJPR, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2015.
[10] K. Takeshita, S. Kinoshita, and S. Okazaki, “Simple Method for Quanti fi cation of Gadolinium Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents Using ESR Spectroscopy,” vol. 60, no. January, pp. 31–36, 2012.
[11] R. M. Taylor, D. L. Huber, T. C. Monson, A.-M. S. Ali, M. Bisoffi, and L. O. Sillerud, “Multifunctional iron platinum stealth immunomicelles: targeted detection of human prostate cancer cells using both fluorescence and magnetic resonance imaging.,” J. Nanopart. Res., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 4717–4729, 2011.
[12] C. W. Jung and P. Jacobs, “Physical and chemical properties of superparamagnetic iron oxide MR contrast agents: ferumoxides, ferumoxtran, ferumoxsil.,” Magn. Reson. Imaging, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 661–74, Jan. 1995.
[13] V. Runge, “Contrast Agents: Safety Profile.,” http://clinical-mri.com/pdf/ Contrast Agents/Contrast Agents - Safety Profile amended table.pdf, pp.1–6, 2008.
[14] M.-C. Hsieh and J.-H. Chen, “Quantification of MRI Contrast Agent Concentration Using Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping,” Trans. Japanese Soc. Med. Biol. Eng., p. R–240, Sep. 2013.
[15] Y.-X. J. Wang, “Superparamagnetic iron oxide based MRI contrast agents: Current status of clinical application.,” Quant. Imaging Med. Surg., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 2011.
[16] A. D. Elster, “How much contrast is enough?. Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence.,” Eur. Radiol., vol. 7 Suppl 5, pp. 276–80, Jan. 1997.
[17] S. K. Li, E.-K. Jeong, and M. S. Hastings, “Magnetic resonance imaging study of current and ion delivery into the eye during transscleral and transcorneal iontophoresis.,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1224–31, 2004.
[18] B. Soediono, Nanoparticles in Biomedical Imaging, Emerging Technologies and Applications, vol. 53. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1989.
[19] A. M. Reddy, B. K. Kwak, H. J. Shim, C. Ahn, H. S. Lee, Y. J. Suh, and E. S. Park, “In vivo tracking of mesenchymal stem cells labeled with a novel chitosan-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles using 3.0T MRI,” J. Korean Med. Sci., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 211–219, 2010.
[20] A. Hill and C. K. Payne, “Impact of serum proteins on MRI contrast agents: cellular binding and T2 relaxation,” RSC Adv., vol. 4, pp. 31735– 31744, 2014.
[21] S. Exhibit, L. I. Lanczi, and M. Beresova, “Comparing low-field and high field relaxometry properties of solutions and clinically used contrast agents,” 2013.