Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2009; 13(2): 145-156
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1220885
© Thieme Medical Publishers

New Perspectives on Bone Marrow Contrast Agents and Molecular Imaging

Heike E. Daldrup-Link1 , Arpan Mohanty1 , Charles Cuenod2 , Bernd Pichler3 , Thomas Link1
  • 1Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
  • 2Department of Radiology, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
  • 3Laboratory for Preclinical Imaging and Imaging Technology, Department of Radiology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 May 2009 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of bone marrow provides a noninvasive diagnosis of the vascularity, cell quantity, and composition of the normal and pathological bone marrow. This article reviews new and evolving techniques for bone marrow MR imaging with a special focus on translational and clinical applications. Evaluations of bone marrow perfusion with standard small molecular contrast agents and, more recently, with macromolecular contrast agents are currently being applied for therapy monitoring. Cell-specific contrast agents are expected to improve the sensitivity and specificity of bone marrow MR imaging. Novel cellular and molecular imaging techniques for the depiction of cell metabolism and specific biochemical pathways are discussed. Cell tracking techniques may allow specific diagnoses of inflammatory processes as well as monitoring of novel therapies based on stem cells. Future developments of fusion imaging techniques and bifunctional contrast agents are directed to combine comprehensive information about bone marrow structure and function with targeted and image-guided therapies.

KEYWORDS

Bone marrow - MR imaging - molecular imaging - cellular imaging - MR contrast agents

REFERENCES

  • 1 Erlemann R, Reiser M F, Peters P E et al.. Musculoskeletal neoplasms: static and dynamic Gd-DTPA—enhanced MR imaging.  Radiology. 1989;  171(3) 767-773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Erlemann R, Sciuk J, Bosse A et al.. Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy.  Radiology. 1990;  175(3) 791-796
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vacca A, Ribatti D, Roncali L et al.. Bone marrow angiogenesis and progression in multiple myeloma.  Br J Haematol. 1994;  87(3) 503-508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rahmouni A, Tempany C, Jones R, Mann R, Yang A, Zerhouni E. Lymphoma: monitoring tumor size and signal intensity with MR imaging.  Radiology. 1993;  188(2) 445-451
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Moehler T M, Hawighorst H, Neben K et al.. Bone marrow microcirculation analysis in multiple myeloma by contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging.  Int J Cancer. 2001;  93(6) 862-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Griffith J F, Yeung D K, Tsang P H et al.. Compromised bone marrow perfusion in osteoporosis.  J Bone Miner Res. 2008;  23(7) 1068-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Montazel J L, Divine M, Lepage E, Kobeiter H, Breil S, Rahmouni A. Normal spinal bone marrow in adults: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging.  Radiology. 2003;  229(3) 703-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baur A, Stäbler A, Bartl R, Lamerz R, Scheidler J, Reiser M. MRI gadolinium enhancement of bone marrow: age-related changes in normals and in diffuse neoplastic infiltration.  Skeletal Radiol. 1997;  26(7) 414-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Daldrup-Link H E, Link T M, Rummeny E J et al.. Assessing permeability alterations of the blood-bone marrow barrier due to total body irradiation: in vivo quantification with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.  Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000;  25(1) 71-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hawighorst H, Libicher M, Knopp M V, Moehler T, Kauffmann G W, Kaick G. Evaluation of angiogenesis and perfusion of bone marrow lesions: role of semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic MRI.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;  10(3) 286-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bollow M, Knauf W, Korfel A et al.. Initial experience with dynamic MR imaging in evaluation of normal bone marrow versus malignant bone marrow infiltrations in humans.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;  7(1) 241-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moulopoulos L A, Maris T G, Papanikolaou N, Panagi G, Vlahos L, Dimopoulos M A. Detection of malignant bone marrow involvement with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.  Ann Oncol. 2003;  14(1) 152-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stäbler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser M F. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow correlated with biopsies and survival rates.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;  167(4) 1029-1036
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pham C D, Roberts T P, van Bruggen N et al.. Magnetic resonance imaging detects suppression of tumor vascular permeability after administration of antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor.  Cancer Invest. 1998;  16(4) 225-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Daldrup-Link H E, Okuhata Y, Wolfe A et al.. Decrease in tumor apparent permeability-surface area product to a MRI macromolecular contrast medium following angiogenesis inhibition with correlations to cytotoxic drug accumulation.  Microcirculation. 2004;  11(5) 387-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zheng S P, Zheng S J, Wu R L, Huang F Y, Cao L M, Jiao C L. Enhanced efficacy in anti-tumour activity by combined therapy of recombinant FGFR-1 related angiogenesis and low-dose cytotoxic agent.  Eur J Cancer. 2007;  43(14) 2134-2139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hou J M, Liu J Y, Yang L et al.. Combination of low-dose gemcitabine and recombinant quail vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 as a vaccine induces synergistic antitumor activities.  Oncology. 2005;  69(1) 81-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Teicher B A, Sotomayor E A, Huang Z D. Antiangiogenic agents potentiate cytotoxic cancer therapies against primary and metastatic disease.  Cancer Res. 1992;  52(23) 6702-6704
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lee K, Erturk E, Mayer R, Cockett A T. Efficacy of antitumor chemotherapy in C3H mice enhanced by the antiangiogenesis steroid, cortisone acetate.  Cancer Res. 1987;  47(19) 5021-5024
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gali-Muhtasib H, Sidani M, Geara F et al.. Quinoxaline 1,4-dioxides are novel angiogenesis inhibitors that potentiate antitumor effects of ionizing radiation.  Int J Oncol. 2004;  24(5) 1121-1131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schellinger D, Lin C S, Hatipoglu H G, Fertikh D. Potential value of vertebral proton MR spectroscopy in determining bone weakness.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;  22(8) 1620-1627
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kugel H, Jung C, Schulte O, Heindel W. Age- and sex-specific differences in the 1H-spectrum of vertebral bone marrow.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;  13(2) 263-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Griffith J F, Yeung D K, Antonio G E et al.. Vertebral bone mineral density, marrow perfusion, and fat content in healthy men and men with osteoporosis: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and MR spectroscopy.  Radiology. 2005;  236(3) 945-951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vanel D, Missenard G, Le Cesne A, Guinebretière J M. Red marrow recolonization induced by growth factors mimicking an increase in tumor volume during preoperative chemotherapy: MR study.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;  21(4) 529-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nonomura Y, Yasumoto M, Yoshimura R et al.. Relationship between bone marrow cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;  13(5) 757-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Metz S, Lohr S, Settles M et al.. Ferumoxtran-10-enhanced MR imaging of the bone marrow before and after conditioning therapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas.  Eur Radiol. 2006;  16(3) 598-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Daldrup-Link H E, Rummeny E J, Ihssen B, Kienast J, Link T M. Iron-oxide-enhanced MR imaging of bone marrow in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: differentiation between tumor infiltration and hypercellular bone marrow.  Eur Radiol. 2002;  12(6) 1557-1566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Simon G H, Raatschen H J, Wendland M F et al.. Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron-oxide-enhanced MR imaging of normal bone marrow in rodents: original research.  Acad Radiol. 2005;  12(9) 1190-1197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lutz A M, Seemayer C, Corot C et al.. Detection of synovial macrophages in an experimental rabbit model of antigen-induced arthritis: ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MR imaging.  Radiology. 2004;  233(1) 149-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Raynal I, Prigent P, Peyramaure S, Najid A, Rebuzzi C, Corot C. Macrophage endocytosis of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: mechanisms and comparison of ferumoxides and ferumoxtran-10.  Invest Radiol. 2004;  39(1) 56-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Reimer P, Bremer C, Allkemper T et al.. Myocardial perfusion and MR angiography of chest with SH U 555 C: results of placebo-controlled clinical phase I study.  Radiology. 2004;  231(2) 474-481
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lutz A M, Weishaupt D, Persohn E et al.. Imaging of macrophages in soft-tissue infection in rats: relationship between ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide dose and MR signal characteristics.  Radiology. 2005;  234(3) 765-775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kaim A H, Wischer T, O'Reilly T et al.. MR imaging with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles in experimental soft-tissue infections in rats.  Radiology. 2002;  225(3) 808-814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kaim A H, Jundt G, Wischer T et al.. Functional-morphologic MR imaging with ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide in acute and chronic soft-tissue infection: study in rats.  Radiology. 2003;  227(1) 169-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bierry G, Jehl F, Prévost G et al.. Percutaneous inoculated rabbit model of intervertebral disc space infection: magnetic resonance imaging features with pathological correlation.  Joint Bone Spine. 2008;  75(4) 465-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Weissleder R, Cheng H C, Bogdanova A, Bogdanov Jr A. Magnetically labeled cells can be detected by MR imaging.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;  7(1) 258-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lewin M, Carlesso N, Tung C-H et al.. Tat peptide-derivatized magnetic nanoparticles allow in vivo tracking and recovery of progenitor cells.  Nat Biotechnol. 2000;  18(4) 410-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bulte J W, Douglas T, Witwer B et al.. Magnetodendrimers allow endosomal magnetic labeling and in vivo tracking of stem cells.  Nat Biotechnol. 2001;  19 1141-1147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Daldrup-Link H E, Rudelius M, Oostendorp R AJ et al.. Targeting of hematopoietic progenitor cells with MR contrast agents.  Radiology. 2003;  228(3) 760-767
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Metz S, Bonaterra G, Rudelius M, Settles M, Rummeny E J, Daldrup-Link H E. Capacity of human monocytes to phagocytose approved iron oxide MR contrast agents in vitro.  Eur Radiol. 2004;  14(10) 1851-1858
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Frank J A, Miller B R, Arbab A S et al.. Clinically applicable labeling of mammalian and stem cells by combining superparamagnetic iron oxides and transfection agents.  Radiology. 2003;  228(2) 480-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Arbab A S, Yocum G T, Kalish H et al.. Efficient magnetic cell labeling with protamine sulfate complexed to ferumoxides for cellular MRI.  Blood. 2004;  104(4) 1217-1223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hoehn M, Küstermann E, Blunk J et al.. Monitoring of implanted stem cell migration in vivo: a highly resolved in vivo magnetic resonance imaging investigation of experimental stroke in rat.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;  99(25) 16267-16272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Arbab A S, Yocum G T, Rad A M et al.. Labeling of cells with ferumoxides-protamine sulfate complexes does not inhibit function or differentiation capacity of hematopoietic or mesenchymal stem cells.  NMR Biomed. 2005;  18(8) 553-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 de Vries I J, Lesterhuis W J, Barentsz J O et al.. Magnetic resonance tracking of dendritic cells in melanoma patients for monitoring of cellular therapy.  Nat Biotechnol. 2005;  23(11) 1407-1413
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Syková E, Jendelová P. Magnetic resonance tracking of transplanted stem cells in rat brain and spinal cord.  Neurodegener Dis. 2006;  3(1-2) 62-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Henning T D, Saborowski O, Golovko D et al.. Cell labeling with the positive MR contrast agent gadofluorine M.  Eur Radiol. 2007;  17(5) 1226-1234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Rudelius M, Daldrup-Link H E, Heinzmann U et al.. Highly efficient paramagnetic cellular labeling by standard transfection protocols.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;  30 1038-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Daldrup-Link H E, Rudelius M, Piontek G et al.. Migration of iron oxide-labeled human hematopoietic progenitor cells in a mouse model: in vivo monitoring with 1.5-T MR imaging equipment.  Radiology. 2005;  234(1) 197-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Heymer A, Haddad D, Weber M et al.. Iron oxide labelling of human mesenchymal stem cells in collagen hydrogels for articular cartilage repair.  Biomaterials. 2008;  29(10) 1473-1483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Terrovitis J V, Bulte J W, Sarvananthan S, Crowe L A, Sarathchandra P, Batten P et al.. Magnetic resonance imaging of ferumoxide-labeled mesenchymal stem cells seeded on collagen scaffolds—relevance to tissue engineering.  Tissue Eng. 2006;  12(10) 2765-2775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Jing X H, Yang L, Duan X J et al.. In vivo MR imaging tracking of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticle labeled, engineered, autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells following intra-articular injection.  Joint Bone Spine. 2008;  75(4) 432-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Quintana A, Raczka E, Piehler L et al.. Design and function of a dendrimer-based therapeutic nanodevice targeted to tumor cells through the folate receptor.  Pharm Res. 2002;  19(9) 1310-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Choi H, Choi S R, Zhou R, Kung H F, Chen I W. Iron oxide nanoparticles as magnetic resonance contrast agent for tumor imaging via folate receptor-targeted delivery.  Acad Radiol. 2004;  11(9) 996-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Leuschner C, Kumar C S, Hansel W, Soboyejo W, Zhou J, Hormes J. LHRH-conjugated magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for detection of breast cancer metastases.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;  99(2) 163-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Macheda M L, Rogers S, Best J D. Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins in cancer.  J Cell Physiol. 2005;  202(3) 654-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Clavo A C, Brown R S, Wahl R L. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human cancer cell lines is increased by hypoxia.  J Nucl Med. 1995;  36(9) 1625-1632
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Haberkorn U, Ziegler S I, Oberdorfer F et al.. FDG uptake, tumor proliferation and expression of glycolysis associated genes in animal tumor models.  Nucl Med Biol. 1994;  21(6) 827-834
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Maublant J, Vuillez J P, Talbot J N et al.. Positron emission tomography (PET) and (F-18)-fluorodeoxyglucose in (FDG) in cancerology [in French].  Bull Cancer. 1998;  85(11) 935-950
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Luciani A, Olivier J C, Clement O et al.. Glucose-receptor MR imaging of tumors: study in mice with PEGylated paramagnetic niosomes.  Radiology. 2004;  231(1) 135-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Nobs L, Buchegger F, Gurny R, Allémann E. Current methods for attaching targeting ligands to liposomes and nanoparticles.  J Pharm Sci. 2004;  93(8) 1980-1992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Torchilin V P. Liposomes as delivery agents for medical imaging.  Mol Med Today. 1996;  2(6) 242-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Unger E C, Shen D K, Fritz T A. Status of liposomes as MR contrast agents.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;  3(1) 195-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Gregoriadis G, Florence A T. Liposomes in drug delivery. Clinical, diagnostic and ophthalmic potential.  Drugs. 1993;  45(1) 15-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Uchegbu I F, Schätzlein A, Vanlerberghe G, Morgatini N, Florence A T. Polyhedral non-ionic surfactant vesicles.  J Pharm Pharmacol. 1997;  49(6) 606-610
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Dufes C, Schätzlein A G, Tetley L et al.. Niosomes and polymeric chitosan based vesicles bearing transferrin and glucose ligands for drug targeting.  Pharm Res. 2000;  17(10) 1250-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Woodle M C, Lasic D D. Sterically stabilized liposomes.  Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992;  1113(2) 171-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Allen T M, Hansen C B, Lopes de Menezes D E. Pharmacokinetics of long-circulating liposomes.  Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1995;  16 267-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Wu N Z, Da D, Rudoll T L, Needham D, Whorton A R, Dewhirst M W. Increased microvascular permeability contributes to preferential accumulation of stealth liposomes in tumor tissue.  Cancer Res. 1993;  53(16) 3765-3770
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Needham D, McIntosh T J, Lasic D D. Repulsive interactions and mechanical stability of polymer-grafted lipid membranes.  Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992;  1108(1) 40-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Uster P S, Allen T M, Daniel B E, Mendez C J, Newman M S, Zhu G Z. Insertion of poly(ethylene glycol) derivatized phospholipid into pre-formed liposomes results in prolonged in vivo circulation time.  FEBS Lett. 1996;  386(2-3) 243-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Huang Y, Chen J, Chen X, Gao J, Liang W. PEGylated synthetic surfactant vesicles (Niosomes): novel carriers for oligonucleotides.  J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;  19(2) 607-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Oyewumi M O, Yokel R A, Jay M, Coakley T, Mumper R J. Comparison of cell uptake, biodistribution and tumor retention of folate-coated and PEG-coated gadolinium nanoparticles in tumor-bearing mice.  J Control Release. 2004;  95(3) 613-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Bulte J W, de Cuyper M, Despres D, Frank J A. Short- vs. long-circulating magnetoliposomes as bone marrow-seeking MR contrast agents.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;  9(2) 329-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Päuser S, Reszka R, Wagner S, Wolf K J, Buhr H J, Berger G. Liposome-encapsulated superparamagnetic iron oxide particles as markers in an MRI-guided search for tumor-specific drug carriers.  Anticancer Drug Des. 1997;  12(2) 125-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Fortin-Ripoche J P, Martina M S, Gazeau F et al.. Magnetic targeting of magnetoliposomes to solid tumors with MR imaging monitoring in mice: feasibility.  Radiology. 2006;  239(2) 415-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Martina M S, Fortin J P, Ménager C et al.. Generation of superparamagnetic liposomes revealed as highly efficient MRI contrast agents for in vivo imaging.  J Am Chem Soc. 2005;  127(30) 10676-10685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Monsky W L, Kruskal J B, Lukyanov A N et al.. Radio-frequency ablation increases intratumoral liposomal doxorubicin accumulation in a rat breast tumor model.  Radiology. 2002;  224(3) 823-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Goldberg S N, Girnan G D, Lukyanov A N et al.. Percutaneous tumor ablation: increased necrosis with combined radio-frequency ablation and intravenous liposomal doxorubicin in a rat breast tumor model.  Radiology. 2002;  222(3) 797-804
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Harrington K J, Rowlinson-Busza G, Syrigos K N, Uster P S, Vile R G, Stewart J S. Pegylated liposomes have potential as vehicles for intratumoral and subcutaneous drug delivery.  Clin Cancer Res. 2000;  6(6) 2528-2537
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Beyer T, Townsend D W. Putting ‘clear’ into nuclear medicine: a decade of PET/CT development.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33(8) 857-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Beyer T, Townsend D W, Brun T et al.. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology.  J Nucl Med. 2000;  41(8) 1369-1379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Shao Y, Cherry S R, Farahani K et al.. Simultaneous PET and MR imaging.  Phys Med Biol. 1997;  42(10) 1965-1970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Judenhofer M S, Wehrl H F, Newport D F et al.. Simultaneous PET-MRI: a new approach for functional and morphological imaging.  Nat Med. 2008;  14(4) 459-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Catana C, Procissi D, Wu Y, Judenhofer M S, Qi J, Pichler B J et al.. Simultaneous in vivo positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;  105(10) 3705-3710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Raylman R R, Majewski S, Velan S S et al.. Simultaneous acquisition of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) data and positron emission tomography (PET) images with a prototype MR-compatible, small animal PET imager.  J Magn Reson. 2007;  186(2) 305-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Schlemmer H P, Pichler B J, Schmand M et al.. Simultaneous MR/PET imaging of the human brain: feasibility study.  Radiology. 2008;  248(3) 1028-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Heike E Daldrup-LinkM.D. 

Department of Radiology, Section of Pediatric Radiology, University of California San Francisco

505 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA 94143-0628

Email: daldrup@radiology.ucsf.edu

      >