Wlodarczyk W, Boroschewski R, Hentschel M, Wust P, Mönich G, Felix R
Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University, Berlin, Germany.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998 Jan-Feb;8(1):165-74. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880080129.
Radiofrequency hyperthermia of deep-seated pelvic tumors requires noninvasive monitoring of temperature distributions in patients. Methods of MR thermography were reported to be a promising tool in solving this problem. However, to be truly useful for monitoring hyperthermia treatments, MR thermography should be able to cover the entire pelvis in acquisition times no longer than for a breath-hold (< or = 15 seconds) and to resolve small temperature differences (< 1 degrees C). Three methods exploiting the temperature dependence of spin-lattice relaxation time (T1), of self-diffusion coefficient (D), and of chemical shift of proton resonance frequency (PRF) were applied in phantom experiments; the pulse sequences were the T1-weighted gradient echo, the pulsed diffusion gradient spin echo made faster through the keyhole technique, and the gradient echo with the phase reconstruction, respectively. The high planar resolution was compromised, and instead, coarse and more isotropic voxels were used. Experiments were performed in two consecutive steps, thus imitating a possible scenario for monitoring hyperthermia. In the first step, calibration curves were recorded, which were then used in the second step to obtain maps of temperature changes. The results show a clear superiority of the PRF method, followed by the D and the T1 methods. The uncertainty of temperature changes predicted both from calibration curves and from maps was less than 1 degrees C only with the PRF and the D-based methods.
深部盆腔肿瘤的射频热疗需要对患者体内的温度分布进行无创监测。据报道,磁共振热成像方法是解决这一问题的一种很有前景的工具。然而,要真正用于监测热疗过程,磁共振热成像应能够在不超过屏气时间(≤15秒)的采集时间内覆盖整个骨盆,并能分辨出小的温度差异(<1℃)。在模型实验中应用了三种利用自旋晶格弛豫时间(T1)、自扩散系数(D)和质子共振频率(PRF)化学位移的温度依赖性的方法;脉冲序列分别是T1加权梯度回波、通过锁孔技术加速的脉冲扩散梯度自旋回波以及具有相位重建的梯度回波。牺牲了高平面分辨率,转而使用更粗且各向同性更强的体素。实验分两个连续步骤进行,从而模拟监测热疗的一种可能情况。第一步记录校准曲线,然后在第二步中使用这些曲线来获取温度变化图。结果显示PRF方法具有明显优势,其次是D方法和T1方法。仅PRF方法和基于D的方法从校准曲线和温度变化图预测的温度变化不确定性小于1℃。