AJDRAJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gillams, A. R.
Right arrow Articles by Carter, A. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gillams, A. R.
Right arrow Articles by Carter, A. P.

American Journal of Neuroradiology, Vol 17, Issue 2 355-360, Copyright © 1996 by American Society of Neuroradiology


ARTICLES

Magnetization transfer contrast MR in lesions of the head and neck

AR Gillams, N Fuleihan, G Grillone and AP Carter
Department of Radiology, Boston University Medical School and BCH Imaging Foundation, MA, USA.

PURPOSE: To compare lesion-to-background contrast with and without magnetization transfer (MT) in lesions of the head and neck. METHODS: Twenty lesions (16 malignant, 4 benign) were evaluated in 17 patients (11 men, 6 women; mean age, 58 years; age range, 39-76 years). In 13 patients, MR imaging was performed at 0.1 T with continuous-wave, off- resonance MT; in 4 patients, MR imaging was performed at 1.5 T with on- resonance, binomial MT prepulses. Fifteen sequences were conducted before the administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine; 13 were conducted after the administration of that contrast material. The ratio of signal intensity with the MT pulses (Ms) to signal intensity without the MT pulses (Mo) was calculated, as were the lesion-to-background contrast and the contrast-to-noise ratios. RESULTS: Ms/Mo showed both wide variability and considerable overlap among different lesion types. Images from MT sequences showed better contrast than those from non-MT sequences in 23 of 28 lesions (12 of 15 before and 11 of 13 after the administration of contrast material). The mean contrast improvement percentages (+/- standard deviation) were 165.5% (+/- 58%) on unenhanced images and 186.6% (+/- 84.8%) on contrast-enhanced images. The mean improvements in contrast-to-noise ratios were 156% (+/- 60%) on unenhanced images and 171.6% (+/- 98.1%) on contrast-enhanced images. CONCLUSION: MT improved contrast between nodes or tumors showing an MT effect and background tissue (usually fat) not showing an MT effect. MT also improved contrast between contrast-enhanced neoplastic lesions and background tissue that showed an MT effect.