1
|
Pollatou A, Filippi CA, Aydin E, Vaughn K, Thompson D, Korom M, Dufford AJ, Howell B, Zöllei L, Martino AD, Graham A, Scheinost D, Spann MN. An ode to fetal, infant, and toddler neuroimaging: Chronicling early clinical to research applications with MRI, and an introduction to an academic society connecting the field. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2022; 54:101083. [PMID: 35184026 PMCID: PMC8861425 DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2021] [Revised: 12/17/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Fetal, infant, and toddler neuroimaging is commonly thought of as a development of modern times (last two decades). Yet, this field mobilized shortly after the discovery and implementation of MRI technology. Here, we provide a review of the parallel advancements in the fields of fetal, infant, and toddler neuroimaging, noting the shifts from clinical to research use, and the ongoing challenges in this fast-growing field. We chronicle the pioneering science of fetal, infant, and toddler neuroimaging, highlighting the early studies that set the stage for modern advances in imaging during this developmental period, and the large-scale multi-site efforts which ultimately led to the explosion of interest in the field today. Lastly, we consider the growing pains of the community and the need for an academic society that bridges expertise in developmental neuroscience, clinical science, as well as computational and biomedical engineering, to ensure special consideration of the vulnerable mother-offspring dyad (especially during pregnancy), data quality, and image processing tools that are created, rather than adapted, for the young brain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angeliki Pollatou
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Courtney A Filippi
- Section on Development and Affective Neuroscience, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
| | - Ezra Aydin
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kelly Vaughn
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Deanne Thompson
- Clinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Marta Korom
- Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
| | - Alexander J Dufford
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Brittany Howell
- Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, USA; Department of Human Development and Family Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
| | - Lilla Zöllei
- Laboratory for Computational Neuroimaging, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, USA
| | | | - Alice Graham
- Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Dustin Scheinost
- Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Yale Child Study Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Marisa N Spann
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
In this review, the roles of detectors in various medical imaging techniques were described. Ultrasound, optical (near-infrared spectroscopy and optical coherence tomography) and thermal imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, single-photon emission tomography, positron emission tomography were the imaging modalities considered. For each methodology, the state of the art of detectors mainly used in the systems was described, emphasizing new technologies applied.
Collapse
|
3
|
Chen Q, Xie G, Luo C, Yang X, Zhu J, Lee J, Su S, Liang D, Zhang X, Liu X, Li Y, Zheng H. A Dedicated 36-Channel Receive Array for Fetal MRI at 3T. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING 2018; 37:2290-2297. [PMID: 29994303 PMCID: PMC6312740 DOI: 10.1109/tmi.2018.2839191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Due to a lack of fetal imaging coils, the standard commercial abdominal coil is often used for fetal imaging, the performance of which is limited by its insufficient coverage, element number, and Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). In this paper, a dedicated 36-channel coil array, of which size can best fit the body sizes of pregnancy gestation from 20 to 37+ weeks, was designed for fetal imaging at 3T. SNR with full phase encoding and G-factor denoted as noise amplification for parallel imaging were quantitatively evaluated by phantom studies. Compared with a commercial abdominal coil array, the proposed 36-channel fetal array provides not only SNR improvements in full phase encoding (with 10% in the region where the whole fetal body was located, and up to 40% in the edge region where the fetal brain and heart may appear) but also an augmented parallel imaging capability and remarkable SNR improvements at high acceleration factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiaoyan Chen
- Lauterbur Imaging Research Center, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China, and also with Shenzhen Key Laboratory for MRI, Shenzhen 518055, China
| | - Guoxi Xie
- School of Basic Science, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 511436, China
| | - Chao Luo
- Lauterbur Imaging Research Center, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China, and also with Shenzhen Key Laboratory for MRI, Shenzhen 518055, China
| | - Xing Yang
- High-Field Magnetic Resonance Brain Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610054, China
| | - Jin Zhu
- Shenzhen People’s Hospital, Shenzhen 518020, China
| | - Jo Lee
- Lauterbur Imaging Research Center, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China, and also with Shenzhen Key Laboratory for MRI, Shenzhen 518055, China
| | - Shi Su
- Lauterbur Imaging Research Center, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China, and also with Shenzhen Key Laboratory for MRI, Shenzhen 518055, China
| | - Dong Liang
- Lauterbur Imaging Research Center, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China, and also with Shenzhen Key Laboratory for MRI, Shenzhen 518055, China
| | - Xiaoliang Zhang
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158 USA, and also with the UCSF/UC Berkeley Joint Graduate Group in Bioengineering, San Francisco, CA 94158 USA
| | - Xin Liu
- Lauterbur Imaging Research Center, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China, and also with Shenzhen Key Laboratory for MRI, Shenzhen 518055, China
| | - Ye Li
- Corresponding authors: Ye Li, and Hairong Zheng. ; .
| | - Hairong Zheng
- Corresponding authors: Ye Li, and Hairong Zheng. ; .
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, Zynger DL, DeRenne LA, Knopp MV, Guo B, Schurr R, Heymsfield SB, Jia G. Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 2015; 22:467-74. [PMID: 25579637 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2014] [Revised: 10/03/2014] [Accepted: 11/10/2014] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To compare prostate morphology, image quality, and diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) and 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS MR images obtained of 83 patients with prostate cancer using 1.5-T MRI systems with an endorectal coil were compared to images collected from 83 patients with a 3.0-T MRI system. Prostate diameters were measured, and image quality was evaluated by one American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologist (reader 1) and one ABR-certified diagnostic medical physicist (reader 2). The likelihood of the presence of peripheral zone cancer in each sextant and local extent was rated and compared to histopathologic findings. RESULTS Prostate anterior-posterior diameter measured by both readers was significantly shorter with 1.5-T endorectal MRI than with 3.0-T MRI. The overall image quality score difference was significant only for reader 1. Both readers found that the two MRI systems provided a similar diagnostic accuracy in cancer localization, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle involvement. CONCLUSIONS Nonendorectal coil 3.0-T MRI provides prostate images that are natural in shape and that have comparable image quality to those obtained at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil, but not superior diagnostic performance. These findings suggest an opportunity exists for improving technical aspects of the 3.0-T prostate MRI.
Collapse
|
5
|
Tocchio S, Kline-Fath B, Kanal E, Schmithorst VJ, Panigrahy A. MRI evaluation and safety in the developing brain. Semin Perinatol 2015; 39:73-104. [PMID: 25743582 PMCID: PMC4380813 DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 87] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation of the developing brain has dramatically increased over the last decade. Faster acquisitions and the development of advanced MRI sequences, such as magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), perfusion imaging, functional MR imaging (fMRI), and susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI), as well as the use of higher magnetic field strengths has made MRI an invaluable tool for detailed evaluation of the developing brain. This article will provide an overview of the use and challenges associated with 1.5-T and 3-T static magnetic fields for evaluation of the developing brain. This review will also summarize the advantages, clinical challenges, and safety concerns specifically related to MRI in the fetus and newborn, including the implications of increased magnetic field strength, logistics related to transporting and monitoring of neonates during scanning, and sedation considerations, and a discussion of current technologies such as MRI conditional neonatal incubators and dedicated small-foot print neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) scanners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon Tocchio
- Pediatric Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Beth Kline-Fath
- Department of Radiology Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
| | - Emanuel Kanal
- Director, Magnetic Resonance Services; Professor of Neuroradiology; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC)
| | - Vincent J. Schmithorst
- Pediatric Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Ashok Panigrahy
- Pediatric Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology Children׳s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
| |
Collapse
|