Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Aug 17;16(8):e0256252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256252

Comparing the signal enhancement of a gadolinium based and an iron-oxide based contrast agent in low-field MRI

Jordy K van Zandwijk 1,2,*, Frank F J Simonis 1, Friso G Heslinga 1, Elfi I S Hofmeijer 1, Robert H Geelkerken 2,3, Bennie ten Haken 1
Editor: Viktor Vegh4
PMCID: PMC8370648  PMID: 34403442

Abstract

Recently, there has been a renewed interest in low-field MRI. Contrast agents (CA) in MRI have magnetic behavior dependent on magnetic field strength. Therefore, the optimal contrast agent for low-field MRI might be different from what is used at higher fields. Ultra-small superparamagnetic iron-oxides (USPIOs), commonly used as negative CA, might also be used for generating positive contrast in low-field MRI. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an USPIO or a gadolinium based contrast agent is more appropriate at low field strengths. Relaxivity values of ferumoxytol (USPIO) and gadoterate (gadolinium based) were used in this research to simulate normalized signal intensity (SI) curves within a concentration range of 0–15 mM. Simulations were experimentally validated on a 0.25T MRI scanner. Simulations and experiments were performed using spin echo (SE), spoiled gradient echo (SGE), and balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) sequences. Maximum achievable SIs were assessed for both CAs in a range of concentrations on all sequences. Simulations at 0.25T showed a peak in SIs at low concentrations ferumoxytol versus a wide top at higher concentrations for gadoterate in SE and SGE. Experiments agreed well with the simulations in SE and SGE, but less in the bSSFP sequence due to overestimated relaxivities in simulations. At low magnetic field strengths, ferumoxytol generates similar signal enhancement at lower concentrations than gadoterate.

Introduction

Contrast agents (CAs) have been used in MRI for decades with a great use for angiographic purposes [1]. Cardiovascular diseases as peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysms, and cardiomyopathy benefit from enhanced imaging possibilities due to CA administration with excellent signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios. Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCAs) are used for generating positive contrast in millions of MRI examinations because of their unique magnetic properties [2]. An important characteristic of CAs in MRI is that their effect depends on the used field strength [3]. At lower magnetic field strengths the molecular tumbling rate is reduced which increases effect of a T1 CA [4].

Low-field MRI (0.25-1T) has advantages of lower costs, smaller footprint, and better subject accessibility with respect to higher field strengths [5]. MR on these lower field strengths could also benefit from developments in higher-field MRI over the past decades. The benefits of a high-performance low-field MR system (0.55T) in MRI-guided catheterizations, high susceptibility regions, and efficient image acquisition strategies have been demonstrated [6]. Because of this renewed interest, it has become relevant which CA is best suited for low-field MRI.

The use of CAs in low-field MRI up to now has mainly focused on examinations with gadolinium, which generates positive contrast [3]. This was mainly done in intraoperative MR systems for neurosurgery, which often employ low field strengths [7, 8]. Further applications that may require CA administration at lower field strengths can be found in endovascular interventions [9, 10], enhanced vascular imaging [11], or even in gravity dependent investigations [12]. The lowered field will probably not affect the GBCA behavior [13]. However, not much work has been published on optimizing contrast agents for low-field MRI applications. Besides, when the characteristics of a CA that influence relaxation times stay equal at lower field strengths, the contrast-to-noise ratio will drop because of an inherent lower T1 on lower field strengths. This raises the question whether at low field strengths CAs other than GBCAs might be more suitable, such as ultra-small super paramagnetic iron-oxides (USPIOs).

USPIOs possess different physiological and relaxation characteristics compared to GBCAs. When shortening the T1, the signal becomes larger (positive contrast) because of faster longitudinal relaxation. Likewise, shortening the T2* results in less signal (negative contrast) since the net magnetization decreases faster with shorter T2*. Where GBCAs are mostly used for generating positive contrast on T1-weighted imaging, USPIOs are frequently used in T2* weighted imaging as negative CA because the magnetic susceptibility of their iron core greatly shortens T2* [14]. However, when administered at low concentrations, the T1 shortening effects of USPIOs dominate the T2* shortening effects, leading to a positive contrast. Next to that, the relaxivity of USPIOs (i.e. the amount of change in relaxation rate per concentration) increases greatly and possibly triples at field strengths lower than 1T [15], meaning their effect is larger at lower concentrations. At these lower field strengths their r2/r1 ratio is also more favorable to achieve positive contrast [15, 16]. This makes USPIOs an interesting option for a low-field MR system. Besides their improved signal enhancement properties, USPIOs are often given a dextran coating resulting in surface properties that ensure vasculature retention times with half-times up to 21 hours [17] versus 1.5 hours for GBCAs [18]. Next to that, GBCAs are associated with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium accumulation in organs that could be harmful for patients in longer procedures [19, 20]. Ferumoxytol, an USPIO previously used for magnetic resonance angiography has therefore been considered a useful alternative to GBCAs [2123].

This work combines simulations and experimental testing of an USPIO and a GBCA on low magnetic field strength (0.25T). There have been investigations [13, 2426] in relaxivities of both contrast agent types on field strengths like 1.5T and 3.0T. An additional signal intensity (SI) gain because of higher relaxivities for the clinically interesting USPIO ferumoxytol [17] on a field strength lower than 1.5T is to be expected. At 0.55T only slightly higher relaxivity was found for ferumoxytol [6], but for ultra-low field MRI (<10mT) USPIOs show more pronounced advantages in terms of enhanced signal and shorter scan times [16, 27]. Forthcoming, at 0.25T the added value of USPIO enhanced imaging should be investigated.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a gadolinium-based or an iron-oxide based CA is more suited to provide signal enhancement in low-field MRI. For this comparison, SIs were simulated for three different MR sequences that are generally employed in an angiographic or vascular interventional setting. Initial scan parameters were chosen to provide optimal positive contrast in T1-weighted images and to avoid saturation. Subsequently, the signal enhancement generated by both CAs was measured in phantom samples on a low-field MRI-scanner and compared to the simulations.

Materials and methods

The GBCA gadoterate acid (Gd-DOTA, Dotarem®, Guerbet, France) and USPIO ferumoxytol (Feraheme, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, USA) were used as contrast agents in this research. A 0.25T MRI scanner (G-scan Brio, Esaote, Italy) equipped with a coil used for wrist examinations was used in all experiments. For MR angiography, values of 2.67 mM for gadoterate (0.2 mmol/kg) [28] and 0.96 mM of iron (4 mg/kg) [29] are conventional on field strengths equal or higher than 1.5T. Therefore, a phantom both for ferumoxytol and gadoterate was built containing concentrations of 0.15, 0.30, 1.2, 7.0, and 14 mM in bovine blood in a circular setup of 15 ml vials with a fish oil marker to indicate the orientation of the samples. A sample of bovine blood without CA served as reference. First, the relaxivities of both CA’s on 0.25T were experimentally estimated. Secondly, their SIs were simulated for common MR sequences. Lastly, phantom experiments were performed on the 0.25T MRI scanner to validate the simulated signal intensities.

Relaxivity

Since the r1 and r2 values of both ferumoxytol and gadoterate were unknown on 0.25T, this was measured on a 0.25T MRI scanner using the concentrations range of CAs and the NOVIFAST method [30] for r1 and DESPOT2 [31] for r2. Scanning parameters for these methods are given in Table 1. First, with NOVIFAST we used a spoiled gradient echo sequence (SGE) with six varying flip angles between 10° and 90° to obtain T1 maps of the samples. Subsequently, the r1 values were calculated using Eq 1.

Table 1. Parameters of the NOVIFAST and DESPOT2 methods that were applied to obtain consecutively T1 and T2 maps.

Sequence TR (ms) TE (ms) FA (°)
NOVIFAST SGE 26 15 10-20-30-40-60-90
DESPOT2 bSSFP 10 5 20-30-40-50-70-90
1Ti(C)=1Ti(0)+ri*Cwithi=1,2 [1]

For calculation of the r2 values with the DESPOT2 method the T1 values resulting from NOVIFAST were required as input. We obtained balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) scans with varying flip angles ranging from 20° to 90°. The resulting T2 maps were used for determination of the r2 values using Eq 1.

The r1 and r2 values of ferumoxytol on 1.5T are known from literature (r1 = 15 mM-1 s-1 and r2 = 89 mM-1 s-1) [32]. Relaxivity for gadoterate on 1.5T has been described by Rohrer [13] as r1 = 2.9 mM-1 s-1 and r2 = 3.2 mM-1 s-1.

Sequences & simulations

SIs were simulated for three relevant sequences to study the SI as a function of the CA concentration. Simulations were performed at low field (0.25T) and at common field strength (1.5T) for comparison.

First, a regular spin echo (SE) that is often used for anatomical reference was simulated. Eq 2 states the SI in a SE in relation to the proton density (PD), repetition time (TR), echo time (TE), and T1 and T2 values of the tissue [33]. To obtain maximum T1-weighted contrast for optimal contrast agent visibility, TR and TE were set to the lowest possible values of the MRI scanner (Table 2). Furthermore, a flip angle of 90° was chosen.

Table 2. Parameters of the MR sequences that were used to analyze the samples with different concentrations of ferumoxytol and gadoterate.

Acq. res. = acquired resolution.

SE SGE bSSFP
TR (ms) 50 26 10
TE (ms) 18 10 5
FA (°) 90 40 60
Num. acquisitions 1 1 3
Slice thickness (mm) 10 10 10
Acq. res. (mm x mm) 0.78×0.78 0.78×0.78 0.98×0.98
SISE(C)=PD*(1eTR/T1(C))*eTE/T2(C) [2]

Second, an SGE sequence that can be used for angiographic purposes was simulated. Its signal is defined by Eq 3 [34].

SISGE(C)=PD*sinθ(1eTR/T1(C))1cosθeTR/T1(C)eTE/T2*(C) [3]

The measured signal in this sequence is also dependent on the flip angle (θ). To avoid saturation of the sample with large flip angle, we used a flip angle of 40° in the simulations and experiments.

Third, a bSSFP was simulated because of its favorable SNR characteristics. Less contrast difference due to CAs is expected for this sequence since its contrast is known to be T2/T1-weighted. Eq 4 gives the SI expression for bSSFP [35].

SISSFP(C)=PD*sinθ1eTR/T1(C)1(eTR/T1(C)eTR/T2(C))cosθ(eTR/T1(C))(eTR/T2(C))eTE/T2(C) [4]

Signal of all sequences was normalized with respect to the situation where no CA was added (C = 0) to accentuate the effect of the CA. The main outcome is the ratio of increase in SI with respect to SI(0). Table 2 shows the used scan parameters for all sequences. All simulations were validated by scanning both ferumoxytol and gadoterate phantoms.

Analysis

The data were analyzed with Matlab (Mathworks Inc., Natick, USA). Signal intensities were measured from the average of automatically selected regions of interest with a radius of 6 pixels around the center of each sample to avoid signal affected by Gibbs ringing. Subsequently, the values were normalized with respect to the intensity of the reference sample. The coefficient of variation of the signal intensity in the samples was obtained by dividing the SD by the mean SI in each sample.

Results

Fig 1 shows the MRI scans of ferumoxytol and gadoterate samples for the three sequences. The coefficient of variation in the samples was 1.3% (SE), 0.9% (SGE), and 1.1% (bSSFP). Noticeable is the susceptibility artefact around the samples of 7 and 14 mM ferumoxytol, which partly distorted the reference sample (see Fig 1, top row). Moreover, the magnetic field inhomogeneities due to the highly paramagnetic samples cause banding artefacts to appear in the bSSFP scans of the ferumoxytol samples. There was no signal in the samples with high concentration (7 mM and 14 mM) of ferumoxytol.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Setup of the CA phantom (left) for both ferumoxytol (upper row; Fe) and gadoterate (lower row; Gd), with 0 = reference (no CA), 1 = 0.15 mM, 2 = 0.3 mM, 3 = 1.2 mM, 4 = 7 mM, 5 = 14 mM. ‘M’ indicates the marker for orientation. MRI scans of the SE (middle left), SGE (middle right), and bSSFP (right) sequence show the amount of signal compared to the reference sample which is in the center of the setup. Deformation of the reference sample can be seen in the SE and SGE scans of ferumoxytol. Due to scaling only images made with the same sequence can be compared with respect to signal intensity.

The T1 and T2 maps together with the fit relaxivity values are shown in Fig 2. For ferumoxytol we found an r1 of 40.3 mM-1 s-1 and an r2 of 259.5 mM-1 s-1 at 0.25T (both with R-squared = 0.99). For gadoterate, we found an r1 of 3.58 mM-1 s-1 and an r2 of 21.6 mM-1 s-1 at 0.25T (both with R-squared = 0.96). These values were used as input for simulations of SI curves for SE, SGE, and bSSFP.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

T1maps (left column) that were calculated with NOVIFAST and used as input for the DESPOT2 method to generate the T2maps (middle column). T1 and T2 values in the samples were used to calculate relaxation rates as function of the concentration (right column). For ferumoxytol (top row) and gadoterate (bottom row) relaxivity values were fit based on the relaxation rates.

Fig 3 shows the simulated SI curves for different concentrations of ferumoxytol and gadoterate on 0.25T and 1.5T. The curves of SE and SGE have similar shapes for ferumoxytol with a sharp peak of signal enhancement at low concentrations. For gadoterate there is a plateau at higher concentrations indicating a broader range of concentrations that gives similar signal enhancement on both field strengths. The bSSFP simulation shows for both CAs a decrease in signal compared to the reference, meaning that no signal enhancement could be achieved. A concentration of around 0.16 mM ferumoxytol yielded the maximum signal increase of 3.3 times the reference at 0.25T, whereas for gadoterate this was 3.5 times at a concentration of 1.9 mM on SE and SGE on 0.25T. Maximum increases are thus comparable for both CAs, but occurred earlier for ferumoxytol. The amount of potential maximal signal increase was similar on 0.25T and 1.5T for ferumoxytol, but higher for gadoterate on 1.5T with a 10-fold (SE) and 6.8-fold (SGE) increase.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Simulated SIs calculated from 0–15 mM for ferumoxytol (Fe) and gadoterate (Gd) for an SE, SGE, and bSSFP sequence at 0.25T (left column) and 1.5T (right column). SIs are shown as normalized values as ratio to no CA (which corresponds with a value of 1). These simulations contributed to identifying relevant concentrations (0–0.15–0.30–1.20–7.0–14.0 mM) that were prepared to perform the experiments. Note the difference in y-axis between 0.25T and 1.5T and the lack of signal enhancement in the bSSFP sequence on 0.25T.

Fig 4 shows the measured SIs for both CAs on all three sequences on 0.25T. Visual comparison with the simulated curves shows similar results with a peak in SI at low concentrations of ferumoxytol and a wider peak at higher concentrations for gadoterate on SE and SGE. The measured bSSFP shows for ferumoxytol a maximum increase of 1.6 times the reference in the 0.30 mM sample, whereas all gadoterate samples show increase with a maximum of 2.3 times for the 7 mM sample. This is in contrast with simulations which predicted no enhancement at all.

Fig 4. Measured signals (SIs) for the prepared concentrations (0–0.15–0.30–1.20–7.0–14.0 mM) for an SE, SGE, and bSSFP sequence at 0.25T.

Fig 4

SIs are shown as normalized values as ratio to no CA (which corresponds with a value of 1). These results were compared with the normalized simulated SIs from Fig 3 (left column).

Discussion

The goal of this research was to measure whether a GBCA (gadoterate) or an USPIO (ferumoxytol) would be more suitable for providing positive contrast at low magnetic field strengths. This research confirmed that a low concentration of ferumoxytol (<0.40 mM) leads to similar signal enhancement as much higher concentrations of gadoterate (around 5 mM) on these field strengths.

Relaxivities at 0.25T were measured based on T1 and T2 maps that were calculated with the NOVIFAST [30] and DESPOT2 [31] methods respectively. Both methods seemed to be accurate based on the R-squared values when fitting through the different samples. The T1 maps seemed to produce r1 results in line with expected relaxivities after extrapolation of 0.5T and 1.5T data [6, 13]. However, the calculated r2 was much higher than expected. Based on known relaxivities on 0.5T and 1.5T, these r2 of 259.5 mM-1 s-1 (ferumoxytol) and 21.6 mM-1 s-1 (gadoterate) were expected to be in the range of 80–120 mM-1 s-1 and 3–5 mM-1 s-1 respectively [6, 13].We hypothesize that this is due to signal loss in bSSFP; when this sequence is incorrectly balanced due to background gradients and a relatively long TR, the signal can become T2* (instead of T2) dependent [36]. This results in a severe underestimation of T2 leading to an overestimated r2. Since the simulations were based on these overestimated r2 values, simulated signal in the bSSFP sequence is lower than the measured signal. This was seen and confirmed in the experiments, where a slight increase in SI for both CAs was observed. When simulations were performed with the r2 values expected from literature, simulated signals were more like the experiments.

The relaxation effects that were investigated in this study are harnessed differently for an SE, SGE and bSSFP sequence. An important factor when selecting and applying a CA to specific environments that should be taken into account is the weighting of the sequence [4, 37]. For angiographic purposes, often T1-weighted sequences are used like the SE and SGE. Contrast of those sequences can be enhanced by using a CA with high r1 to strongly influence signal intensity in the blood. However, for bSSFP sequences that are often used in abdominal and cardiac imaging, the contrast depends on the T2/T1 ratio. Administration of CAs is then only beneficial when the T2/T1 ratio does not approach unity [37].

The chosen imaging parameters were determined by the lowest possible combination of TR/TE on the used MRI system. Although these parameters could be further minimized on other MR systems, the experiments demonstrated higher SI at low concentrations of ferumoxytol (<1.2 mM) than at higher concentrations (> 7.0 mM) of gadoterate.

Although ferumoxytol seems to be advantageous at low field strengths when used in low concentrations, it can have certain drawbacks. For example, in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI the application uptake curve is fit to characterize certain tissue properties, and it is often required to run more than one CA dose [38]. To this aim, a faster CA washout is required. Since USPIOs show considerably slower washout times, it may be less convenient for such applications. Furthermore, the narrow concentration range at which the SI peaks has the potential drawback that the concentration should not be too high after administration since this will weaken SI. However, careful administration of USPIO doses is in line with its safety regulations, meaning that high doses are already not allowed. Besides, ferumoxytol blood-pool residence time in comparison with GBCAs is much longer, which negates the need for administration of subsequent doses [29].

The observed narrow peak in Fig 3 in the simulations for ferumoxytol in SE and SGE implicates that only low concentrations cause signal increase, whereas higher concentrations would lead to signal decrease. Besides, the measurements may be missing the absolute maximum of the peak because sampling points are scarce. The optimal concentration range for gadoterate is achieved at higher concentrations under a wider range due to moderate r2 relaxivity. Literature supports our findings by stating that ferumoxytol is an interesting choice as intravascular contrast agent at lower field strengths [6].

Clinical examples that could benefit from lowered CA administration are MR interventions, vascular imaging, and situations where GBCAs are not desired or even impossible to use because of kidney disease. Besides, the difference in CA excretion mechanism between ferumoxytol and GBCAs can also be exploited [39]. Whereas the half-life of ferumoxytol is more than 15 hours, gadolinium CAs have half-lives of around 70–120 minutes [40]. This longer blood circulation time of ferumoxytol will be an advantage in a situation where a constant SI increase is required over a longer time, like in an endovascular intervention with a length of hours [41]. A high peak in SI for low concentrations is then even more useful, since it means that less CA has to be administered over time, decreasing toxicity. Furthermore, lower doses of ferumoxytol at lower field strengths have clinical benefits in terms of reduced adverse reactions, and less hepatic uptake giving less confounding signal changes in other MRI scans of the patient.

The additional benefit of the long blood circulation time of ferumoxytol is that it enables the user to exploit longer imaging times. This allows for more averaging during acquisition resulting in higher SNR, which is also desirable when scanning at low field strengths. Further research could address SNR optimization in low-field MRI to facilitate clinical application of USPIO enhanced imaging.

Conclusions

In conclusion, solely based on its relaxivity characteristics ferumoxytol is more beneficial in generating positive contrast at low magnetic field strengths than gadoterate where lower concentrations yield almost equal signal enhancement. MR sequence optimalisation with respect to specific USPIO behavior in vivo addressing both excretion mechanism and retention time should be the subject of subsequent research.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(ZIP)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its S1 Dataset files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Scott LJ. Gadobutrol: A review of its use for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in adults and children. Clin Drug Investig. 2013;33: 303–314. doi: 10.1007/s40261-013-0066-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Beomonte B, Carlo Z, Quattrocchi C, Errante Y, Grasso RF. Gadolinium ‑ based contrast agents: did we miss something in the last 25 years? Radiol Med. 2015; 1–4. doi: 10.1007/s11547-015-0614-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Desai NK, Runge VM. Contrast Use at Low Field—A Review. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;14: 360–364. doi: 10.1097/00002142-200310000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wahsner J, Gale EM, Rodríguez-Rodríguez A, Caravan P. Chemistry of MRI contrast agents: Current challenges and new frontiers. Chem Rev. 2019;119: 957–1057. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Marques JP, Simonis FFJ, Webb AG. Low-Field MRI: An MR Physics Perspective. 2019; 1–15. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Campbell-Washburn AE, Ramasawmy R, Restivo MC. Opportunities in Interventional and Diagnostic Imaging by Using High-Performance Low-Field-Strength MRI. Radiology. 2019; 2–11. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019194017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wirtz CR, Aras N. Low-field interventional MRI in neurosurgery: finding the right dose of contrast medium. Interv Neuroradiol. 2001;43: 254–258. doi: 10.1007/pl00006047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yrjana SK, Tuominen J, Koivukangas J. Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Neurosurgery. Acta radiol. 2007;48: 540–549. doi: 10.1080/02841850701280858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Blanco RT, Ojala R, Kariniemi J, Perälä J, Niinimäki J, Tervonen O. Interventional and intraoperative MRI at low field scanner—A review. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56: 130–142. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.03.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Campbell-washburn AE, Rogers T, Khan JM, Basar B, Ramasawmy R, Grant LP, et al. Clinical MRI-guided right heart catheterization with standard metallic devices using a high performance 0.55T system. Proc ISMRM 2019. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Simonetti OP, Ahmad R. Low-Field Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Compelling Case for Cardiac Magnetic Resonance’s Future. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10: 1–7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.005446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Qureshi AI, Saleem MA. Upright Catheter-Based Cerebral Angiography. J Vasc Interv Neurol. 2017;9: 14–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann H-J. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol. 2005;40: 715–724. doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000184756.66360.d3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang Y-XJ. Superparamagnetic iron oxide based MRI contrast agents: Current status of clinical application. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2011;1: 35–40. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2011.08.03 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gossuin Y, Gillis P, Hocq A, Vuong QL, Roch A. Magnetic resonance relaxation properties of superparamagnetic particles. Wiley Interdiscip Rev nanobiotechnology. 2009;1: 299–310. doi: 10.1002/wnan.36 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yin X, Russek SE, Zabow G, Sun F, Mohap J, Keenan KE, et al. Large T1 contrast enhancement using superparamagnetic nanoparticles in ultra-low field MRI. Nat Sci reports. 2018;8: 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30264-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Toth GB, Varallyay CG, Horvath A, Bashir MR, Choyke PL, Daldrup-Link HE, et al. Current and potential imaging applications of ferumoxytol for magnetic resonance imaging. Kidney Int. 2016; 1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2016.12.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Aime S, Caravan P. Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30: 1259–1267. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Weller A, Barber JL, Olsen ØE. Gadolinium and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: an update. 2014; 1927–1937. doi: 10.1007/s00467-013-2636-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vergauwen E, Vanbinst A, Brussaard C, Janssens P, Clerck D De, Lint M Van, et al. Central nervous system gadolinium accumulation in patients undergoing periodical contrast MRI screening for hereditary tumor syndromes. 2018; 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13053-017-0084-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bashir MR, Bhatti L, Marin D, Nelson RC. Emerging applications for ferumoxytol as a contrast agent in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41: 884–898. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lehrman ED, Plotnik AN, Hope T, Saloner D. Ferumoxytol-enhanced MRI in the peripheral vasculature. Clin Radiol. 2019;74: 37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.02.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nguyen KL, Yoshida T, Kathuria-Prakash N, Zaki IH, Varallyay CG, Semple SI, et al. Multicenter safety and practice for off-label diagnostic use of ferumoxytol in MRI. Radiology. 2019;293: 554–564. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Knobloch G, Colgan T, Wiens CN, Wang X, Schubert T, Hernando D, et al. Relaxivity of Ferumoxytol at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Invest Radiol. 2017;00: 1. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hagberg GE, Scheffler K. Effect of r 1 and r 2 relaxivity of gadolinium-based contrast agents on the T 1 -weighted MR signal at increasing magnetic field strengths. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2013;8: 456–465. doi: 10.1002/cmmi.1565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gossuin Y, Disch S, Vuong QL, Gillis P, Hermann RP, Park J-H, et al. NMR relaxation and magnetic properties of superparamagnetic nanoworms. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2010;5: 318. doi: 10.1002/cmmi.387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Waddington DEJ, Boele T, Maschmeyer R, Kuncic Z, Rosen MS. High-sensitivity in vivo contrast for ultra-low field magnetic resonance imaging using superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Sci Adv. 2020;6: 1–10. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb0998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nacif MS, Arai AE, Lima JAC, Bluemke DA. Gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance: administered dose in relationship to united states food and drug administration (FDA) guidelines. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14: 18. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-14-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Vasanawala SS, Nguyen KL, Hope MD, Bridges MD, Hope TA, Reeder SB, et al. Safety and technique of ferumoxytol administration for MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2016;75: 2107–2111. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ramos-Llorden G, Vegas-Sanchez-Ferrero G, Bjork M, Vanhevel F, Parizel PM, San Jose Estepar R, et al. NOVIFAST: A Fast Algorithm for Accurate and Precise VFA MRI T 1 Mapping. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018;37: 2414–2427. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2018.2833288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Deoni SCL, Rutt BK, Peters TM. Rapid combined T1 and T2 mapping using gradient recalled acquisition in the steady state. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49: 515–526. doi: 10.1002/mrm.10407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Weinstein JS, Varallyay CG, Dosa E, Gahramanov S, Hamilton B, Rooney WD, et al. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and potential therapeutic applications in neurooncology and central nervous system inflammatory pathologies, a review. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010;30: 15–35. doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2009.192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Perman WH, Hilal SK, Simon HE, Maudsley AA. Contrast manipulation in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1984;2: 23–32. doi: 10.1016/0730-725x(84)90121-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ernst R and, Anderson W. Application of Fourier transform spectroscopy to magnetic resonance. Rev Sci Instrum. 1966;37: 93. Available: 10.1063/1.1719961 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Oppelt A, Graumann R, Barfuss H, Fischer H, Hartl W, Schajor W. FISP—a new fast MRI sequence. Electromedica. 1986;54: 15–18. Available: http://mri-q.com/uploads/3/2/7/4/3274160/oppelt_fisp_1986.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Scheffler K, Hennig J. Is TrueFISP a gradient-echo or a spin-echo sequence? Magn Reson Med. 2003;49: 395–397. doi: 10.1002/mrm.10351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Graves MJ. Pulse sequences for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Radiography. 2007;13: 20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2006.10.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yan Y, Sun X, Shen B. Contrast agents in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Oncotarget. 2017;8: 43491–43505. Available: www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget/ doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16482 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Finn JP, Nguyen K-L, Hu P. Ferumoxytol vs. Gadolinium agents for contrast-enhanced MRI: Thoughts on evolving indications, risks, and benefits. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 1–5. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ersoy H, Rybicki FJ. Biochemical safety profiles of gadolinium-based extracellular contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26: 1190–1197. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Krombach GA. MRI Guidance of Vascular Applications. Interventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2012. pp. 175–188. doi: 10.1007/174 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Viktor Vegh

16 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-15569

Comparing the Signal Enhancement of a Gadolinium Based and an Iron-Oxide Based Contrast Agent in Low-Field MRI

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. van Zandwijk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Your paper was well received by two reviewers, both making recommendations (one minor and one major) to improve clarity and interpretation of results. Please address all the major and minor points raised by the two reviewers. I've deemed the corrections addressable within weeks, as such my overall recommended is a minor revision.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Viktor Vegh, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3.  In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a technically sound and clearly documented investigation into the relaxivity of ferumoxytol and gadoterate at 0.25 T in phantoms accompanied by modelling to explain how the experimental results map onto a broader range of conditions.

The basis of the work is not very original, and the paper could be improved with more rigorous academic referencing of past work to position these results in context, but the results at 0.25 T seem to fill a small gap in the literature and will be of some benefit to an audience interested in applying similar contrast agents in this low magnetic field regime.

In terms of how the authors could generally improve their paper, I would recommend they expand their discussion of relaxation mechanisms at low field and how these relaxation effects are harnessed by particular imaging sequences. I would recommend the review article by Wahsner et al. (https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00363) as a good starting point for the broader context of selecting and applying contrast agents to specific environments.

I have few specific criticisms of the prose of the paper as a whole, which is largely written clearly and concisely, but I would like to mention a few specific issues that occurred to me:

1. On line 89 the authors say " However, an additional signal intensity (SI) gain because of higher relaxivities for the clinically interesting USPIO ferumoxytol [16] on a field strength lower than 1.5T has not been investigated." I find it a little unclear what the authors are trying to say here but I know for certain that USPIOs have been investigated at fields lower than 1.5T. Two investigations that spring to mind, and are particularly relevant to many of the points this paper makes are Yin et al. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30264-5) and Waddington et al. (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abb0998).

2. The paragraph beginning at line 217 seems unclear to me and I think would benefit from more explanation of how the bSFFP signal intensity varies with sequence parameters and the relative relaxivities of the samples. I think at several other points the rest of the paper would also benefit from this explanation, as that would help explain the banding artifacts and distortion seen in Fig 1.

3. The figures generally lack explanatory labels and helpful annotations to aid a reader and in the case of Fig1 there are also no colourbars. I appreciate that comparing across images may not always be a useful or fair comparison but I believe that it is crucial to still show the colour scales for each image so a reader can better interpret and evaluate the quality of the image.

Reviewer #2: This paper evaluates the effects on signal intensity due to a popular MRI contrast (agent gadoterate acid) and a promising alternative solution (ultra-small superparamagnetic iron-oxides) when images are taken in a low-field (0.25 T) MRI system. The research here undertaken is important to improve the performance and patient safety of low-field MRI systems when exploiting the benefits of contrast agents. The study compares simulations with phantom measurements for three MRI sequences often used with contrast agents. Results indicate that ultra-small superparamagnetic iron-oxide contrast agents can induce similar positive signal enhancement than as the gadolinium based counterpart, but with less contrast agent concentration, which can be beneficial for certain clinical imaging needs. The manuscript reads easily and the methods employed are appropriate.

Mayor issues:

p. 11, line 224 - From the SI vs CA plot of figures 3 and 4, it is possible to see that having the right concentration is crucial for USPIO because the SI gain is achieved over a narrower concentration range. Although simulations and measurements show qualitatively similar relaxivity curves, the CA concentration needed on measurements is 3 times larger than on simulations. Authors comment that this is likely due to an underestimation of T2 values. This argument would be solid if it would be estimated what is the T2 underestimation ratio that would justify the required concentration difference and if this is matches with what can be achieved by their MRI system.

p. 12, line 267- Authors conclude that ‘the use of ferumoxytol is more beneficial in generating positive contrast at low magnetic field strengths than gadoterate because lower concentrations yield equal signal enhancement’. This affirmation is misleading as it only considers a concentration advantage of USPIO, but does not account for other arguments in favor and against this contrast agent.

Minor issues:

p2, line 39- In the abstract it is not mentioned that, besides lower absolute SI increases, the measurements also show considerably lower relaxivities.

p3, line 67- Which characteristics 'stay equal'? Their effect on relaxation times?

p4, line 73- It would help the reader to briefly remind the reader why a reduction in T1 time generates positive contrast and a reduction in T2* generates negative contrast.

p4, line 85- What does MRA stand for?

p4, line 89- Typo ‘contrast agents types’

p7, line 137- Please, fix the missing reference.

p8, line 155- The table should go after its mention on the text, not before.

Discussion - It would enrich the discussion adding disadvantages of USPIO. For example, a very important application of CBCA is dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI. On this application the uptake curve is fitted to characterise certain tissue properties, and it is often required to run more than one CA dose. To this aim, a faster CA washout is beneficial. Showing USPIO a considerably slower washout time, it may be less convenient for such applications.

Discussion: It would be interesting to discuss whether the narrower concentration range at which the SI peaks has advantages and/or drawbacks. How important is the concentration on diagnosis with these contrast agents? Could some parts of the image have reduced SI enhancement due to too high/low concentration?

p10, line 215- Typo ‘as’ → ‘at’.

p11, line 237- Measurements may be missing the maximum of the peak on the USPIO phantom because sampling points are scarce.

p11, line 240- Please, rephrase.

p12, line 267- As mentioned before, using USPIO has benefits but can also have downsides (e.g, multi-dose DCE MRI). It may be convenient to rephrase the sentence not to mislead the reader. Also, the results do not show 'equal' signal enhancement as estated. The USPIO measurements reaches <%25 less signal enhancement than those of GD. See maximum values on figure 4.

Fig. 2- Although having a fixed colorbar range often helps comparing the different maps, in this case the range of the T2 maps is much smaller than that of the T1 maps. Visualisation of the T2 maps could benefit from adjusting the colorbar to a shorter range on both Gd and Fe T2 maps. Also, the text on these plots is unreadable due to image resolution. It may have been degraded by the submission system. Please, double check.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ruben Pellicer-Guridi

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Aug 17;16(8):e0256252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256252.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Jul 2021

Answers on both reviewers comments were numbered and in the manuscript for each change it was indicated to which comment the change corresponds. With the text in bold our replies are stated below.

Reviewer #1:

This is a technically sound and clearly documented investigation into the relaxivity of ferumoxytol and gadoterate at 0.25 T in phantoms accompanied by modelling to explain how the experimental results map onto a broader range of conditions.

The basis of the work is not very original, and the paper could be improved with more rigorous academic referencing of past work to position these results in context, but the results at 0.25 T seem to fill a small gap in the literature and will be of some benefit to an audience interested in applying similar contrast agents in this low magnetic field regime.

Many thanks for your efforts in thoroughly reviewing this paper and your kind words. I have tried to answer your questions and remarks below and have adjusted the corresponding text in the manuscript.

In terms of how the authors could generally improve their paper, I would recommend they expand their discussion of relaxation mechanisms at low field and how these relaxation effects are harnessed by particular imaging sequences. I would recommend the review article by Wahsner et al. (https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00363) as a good starting point for the broader context of selecting and applying contrast agents to specific environments.

0.1 Thanks for pointing out this interesting review. We expanded our discussion (as also indicated by the responses to specific criticisms below). Relaxation effects and their relation to MR imaging sequences were handled more extensively.

I have few specific criticisms of the prose of the paper as a whole, which is largely written clearly and concisely, but I would like to mention a few specific issues that occurred to me:

1. On line 89 the authors say " However, an additional signal intensity (SI) gain because of higher relaxivities for the clinically interesting USPIO ferumoxytol [16] on a field strength lower than 1.5T has not been investigated." I find it a little unclear what the authors are trying to say here but I know for certain that USPIOs have been investigated at fields lower than 1.5T. Two investigations that spring to mind, and are particularly relevant to many of the points this paper makes are Yin et al. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30264-5) and Waddington et al. (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abb0998).

1.1 We realize that there have been some investigations on lower field strengths and we should point this out. The proposed studies are performed at ultra-low field (<10mT), since in our study we make use of a 0.25T field strength, this is orders of magnitude different. However, those studies are very much relevant and are therefore mentioned now with respect to the current study.

2. The paragraph beginning at line 217 seems unclear to me and I think would benefit from more explanation of how the bSFFP signal intensity varies with sequence parameters and the relative relaxivities of the samples. I think at several other points the rest of the paper would also benefit from this explanation, as that would help explain the banding artifacts and distortion seen in Fig 1.

1.2 The paragraph you mentioned seems indeed a bit unclear at first. Our reasoning why the bSSFP signal that we measured did not match with the simulations was that other factors like field inhomogeneities influence the signal more in bSSFP sequences. This also causes the banding that was sharply noticed as visible in Fig 1. We now elaborated more on why the experimental bSSFP signal was contradicting with the simulations. This explanation guides the reader further in understanding for what sequences USPIOs would be beneficial and what the drawbacks are of applying a bSSFP while using USPIOs.

3. The figures generally lack explanatory labels and helpful annotations to aid a reader and in the case of Fig1 there are also no colourbars. I appreciate that comparing across images may not always be a useful or fair comparison but I believe that it is crucial to still show the colour scales for each image so a reader can better interpret and evaluate the quality of the image.

1.3 Because all images were equally scaled and the units are arbitrary we first decided to not include a colorbar. However, to make clear that this is the case, we agree interpretation of the images would indeed benefit from this and we added the colorbar. Furthermore, Fig 2 and its caption were revised with removal of abundant information and (white) space. This was also in line with the comments of reviewer #2 on the lack of a colorbar and lower image quality. Fig 3 and Fig 4 were exported in higher quality and their captions were supplemented where necessary. Besides, the width of Fig 4 is now more compressed in order to compare better with the results in Fig 3.

Reviewer #2: This paper evaluates the effects on signal intensity due to a popular MRI contrast (agent gadoterate acid) and a promising alternative solution (ultra-small superparamagnetic iron-oxides) when images are taken in a low-field (0.25 T) MRI system. The research here undertaken is important to improve the performance and patient safety of low-field MRI systems when exploiting the benefits of contrast agents. The study compares simulations with phantom measurements for three MRI sequences often used with contrast agents. Results indicate that ultra-small superparamagnetic iron-oxide contrast agents can induce similar positive signal enhancement than as the gadolinium based counterpart, but with less contrast agent concentration, which can be beneficial for certain clinical imaging needs. The manuscript reads easily and the methods employed are appropriate.

Many thanks for your kind words and efforts in thoroughly reading our manuscript. The issues that you raised were well considered and below we explained and discussed how we improved our manuscript based on your advice.

Mayor issues:

p. 11, line 224 - From the SI vs CA plot of figures 3 and 4, it is possible to see that having the right concentration is crucial for USPIO because the SI gain is achieved over a narrower concentration range. Although simulations and measurements show qualitatively similar relaxivity curves, the CA concentration needed on measurements is 3 times larger than on simulations. Authors comment that this is likely due to an underestimation of T2 values. This argument would be solid if it would be estimated what is the T2 underestimation ratio that would justify the required concentration difference and if this is matches with what can be achieved by their MRI system.

2.1 This is an excellent issue that you are pointing out. First of all, the width of Fig 3 and Fig 4 was not matching, making it harder to interpret and compare the maximum SI as function of concentration between experiments and simulations. Where Fig 4 has only three plots with CA ranging from 0-15 mM, Fig 3 has six plots and thus more compressed graphs. We fixed Fig 4 so it matched the range in Fig 3 better.

The text regarding the underestimation of T2 values in the discussion (original starting on line 224) was also adjusted based on the comments of Reviewer #1. We elaborated on why this underestimation occurred and what it meant for our data. Since magnetic field imperfections led to lower signal values in the bSSFP sequence that were used for calculation of the T2 values, the estimated r2 relaxivity was probably much higher than the true value. We explained in this paragraph that the actual r2 of ferumoxytol and gadoterate are more likely between 80-120 and 3-5 mM-1 s-1 respectively. Simulations using these extrapolated literature values does result in curves that are much more like the experimental curves. The exact T2 values that we found for ferumoxytol and that were used in the fit are 123, 23, and 11 ms. T2 values of 123, 52, and 26 ms would result in an expected relaxivity of 100 mM-1 s-1. For such short T2 values a small difference causes rapid offset in the r2 fit. However, the signal we measured was more T2* dependent and thus smaller than T2, as we explained in the discussion. This offset seemed logical in our view, but based on your issue we made our explanation regarding this much more clear.

p. 12, line 267- Authors conclude that ‘the use of ferumoxytol is more beneficial in generating positive contrast at low magnetic field strengths than gadoterate because lower concentrations yield equal signal enhancement’. This affirmation is misleading as it only considers a concentration advantage of USPIO, but does not account for other arguments in favor and against this contrast agent.

2.2 Our conclusion was indeed somewhat misleading as we considered the advantage based on relaxivity characteristics alone. We made this more specific in our conclusion.

Minor issues:

p2, line 39- In the abstract it is not mentioned that, besides lower absolute SI increases, the measurements also show considerably lower relaxivities.

2.3 You are correct in pointing out that the results section in our abstract did not fully match the results from the manuscript. The estimated r2 relaxivity was indeed very high (probably due to imperfections in our system), which was reflected in the simulations. However, in the final measurements the signal of course depends on the real relaxivity of the CAs. These lower relaxivities in the experiments are causing a mismatch, which was mainly visible in the bSSFP graphs. We corrected this sentence in the abstract.

p3, line 67- Which characteristics 'stay equal'? Their effect on relaxation times?

2.4 Yes their effect on relaxation times. We made this more specific in the manuscript.

p4, line 73- It would help the reader to briefly remind the reader why a reduction in T1 time generates positive contrast and a reduction in T2* generates negative contrast.

2.5 This is a very nice point to address and greatly helps our reader in understanding the study. We added some sentences on that location to make this more clear.

p4, line 85- What does MRA stand for?

2.6 Magnetic resonance angiography. We removed the acronym since it was only used once.

p4, line 89- Typo ‘contrast agents types’

2.7 Fixed.

p7, line 137- Please, fix the missing reference.

2.8 Fixed. (was due to converting by the upload system)

p8, line 155- The table should go after its mention on the text, not before.

2.9 The missing reference was also Table 2, so this mention is now correct.

Discussion - It would enrich the discussion adding disadvantages of USPIO. For example, a very important application of CBCA is dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI. On this application the uptake curve is fitted to characterise certain tissue properties, and it is often required to run more than one CA dose. To this aim, a faster CA washout is beneficial. Showing USPIO a considerably slower washout time, it may be less convenient for such applications.

2.10 We agree this point is valuable to add to the discussion, so we added a paragraph where this relevant drawback of the longer retention time was mentioned.

Discussion: It would be interesting to discuss whether the narrower concentration range at which the SI peaks has advantages and/or drawbacks. How important is the concentration on diagnosis with these contrast agents? Could some parts of the image have reduced SI enhancement due to too high/low concentration?

2.11 There are indeed some more drawbacks and advantages related to using the right concentration in clinical practice. For example, a narrow peak means that the concentration should be in that range and in that range only to give positive contrast. Although this seems hard to achieve, the blood-pool residence time of ferumoxytol is much longer compared to GBCAs, making this easier to achieve. Subsequent doses (at least on the same day of imaging) are also not necessary. After administration of well-known doses, ferumoxytol spreads evenly in the blood-pool. We also referred now to the mini-review of Vasanawala et al. (2016, MRM), which elaborates further on safety and techniques of ferumoxytol administration.

p10, line 215- Typo ‘as’ → ‘at’.

2.12 We apologize for the confusion. We meant to say that a low concentration of ferumoxytol leads to similar signal enhancement as a much higher concentrations of gadoterate. Nevertheless, this sentence has been made a bit shorter and hopefully more clear.

p11, line 237- Measurements may be missing the maximum of the peak on the USPIO phantom because sampling points are scarce.

2.13 That is correct, and we clarified this in the discussion.

p11, line 240- Please, rephrase.

2.14 Rephrased the sentence.

p12, line 267- As mentioned before, using USPIO has benefits but can also have downsides (e.g, multi-dose DCE MRI). It may be convenient to rephrase the sentence not to mislead the reader. Also, the results do not show 'equal' signal enhancement as estated. The USPIO measurements reaches <%25 less signal enhancement than those of GD. See maximum values on figure 4.

2.15 We edited the text in the conclusion to match this comment and the major issue that was mentioned earlier.

Fig. 2- Although having a fixed colorbar range often helps comparing the different maps, in this case the range of the T2 maps is much smaller than that of the T1 maps. Visualisation of the T2 maps could benefit from adjusting the colorbar to a shorter range on both Gd and Fe T2 maps. Also, the text on these plots is unreadable due to image resolution. It may have been degraded by the submission system. Please, double check.

2.16 Fig 2 was extended with a color bar with ranges corresponding to the values that were found in both maps. Also, the caption was clarified which was in line with the remarks of Reviewer #1. All figures were double checked on export in highest possible quality.

________________________________________

Because of the thorough review of our manuscript we came across the following paragraph (original starting at p. 11 line 243) in our discussion that has become obsolete. This information was based on previous experiments that were conducted for this manuscript in a demi-water solvent. However, with bovine blood the absolute difference between simulations and experiments was less pronounced. We apologize for this insufficiency, and have removed those sentences.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Viktor Vegh

4 Aug 2021

Comparing the Signal Enhancement of a Gadolinium Based and an Iron-Oxide Based Contrast Agent in Low-Field MRI

PONE-D-21-15569R1

Dear Dr. van Zandwijk,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Viktor Vegh, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ruben Pellicer-Guridi

Acceptance letter

Viktor Vegh

9 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-15569R1

Comparing the Signal Enhancement of a Gadolinium Based and an Iron-Oxide Based Contrast Agent in Low-Field MRI

Dear Dr. van Zandwijk:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Viktor Vegh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its S1 Dataset files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES