• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 18.07.24

Search results


February 2006
D. Goldsher, S. Amikam, M. Boulos, M. Suleiman, R. Shreiber, A. Eran, Y. Goldshmid, R. Mazbar and A. Roguin

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging is a diagnostic tool of growing importance. Since its introduction, certain medical implants, e.g., pacemakers, were considered an absolute contraindication, mainly due to the presence of ferromagnetic components and the potential for electromagnetic interference. Patients with such implants were therefore prevented from entering MRI systems and not studied by this modality. These devices are now smaller and have improved electromechanical interference protection. Recently in vitro and in vivo data showed that these devices may be scanned safely in the MRI.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with three patients with pacemakers who underwent cerebral MRI studies.

Methods: The study included patients with clear clinical indications for MRI examination and who had implanted devices shown to be safe by in vitro and in vivo animal testing. In each patient the pacemaker was programmed to pacing-off. During the scan, continuous electrocardiographic telemetry, breathing rate, pulse oximetry and symptoms were monitored. Specific absorption rate was limited to 4.0 W/kg for all sequences. Device parameters were assessed before, immediately after MRI, and 1 week later.

Results: None of the patients was pacemaker dependent. During the MRI study, no device movement was felt by the patients and no episodes of inappropriate inhibition or rapid activation of pacing were observed during the scan. At device interrogation here were no significant differences in device parameters pre-, post-, and 1 week after MRI. Image quality was unremarkable in all imaging sequences used and was not influenced by the presence of the pacemaker.

Conclusion: Given appropriate precautions, MRI can be safely performed in patients with a selected permanent pacemaker. This may have significant implications for current MRI contraindications. 
 

November 2005
Galinsky, D. Kisselgoff, T. Sella, T. Peretz, E. Libson and M. Sklair-Levy
 Background: Mammography is the principal breast cancer imaging technique; however, sensitivity is reduced, especially in dense breast tissue. Magnetic resonance imaging is increasingly used in the detection and characterization of breast cancers. The high sensitivity (95–100%) of MRI is consistently observed, and in many situations, MRI is proving superior to classical forms of imaging. Assessment of its impact on management and outcome is vital if MRI is to become standard in the management of breast cancers.

Objectives: To establish the impact of breast MRI on women undergoing testing in our institution.

Methods: We analyzed 82 cases that underwent MRI between January 2001 and April 2003. Analysis appraised the clinical impact of MRI testing in cases where medical summaries were available.

Results: Studies were categorized into five indications: a) screening in high risk women (n=7), b) search for primary disease in the presence of disease (n=5), c) monitoring of chemotherapy (n=2), d) postoperative assessment of tumor bed (n=9), and e) diagnostic/characterization of primary or recurrent breast cancer (n=59). Results were defined as negative, positive or no impact on clinical management. MRI testing had a positive impact in 62 cases, affecting measurable change in 9 cases. Benefit was seen in screening, diagnosis and postoperative cases. In 15 cases, MRI stimulated investigations.

Conclusion: MRI is a valuable tool in breast imaging and affects management. Further trials are necessary to define clearly the role of MRI and to ascertain whether in cases where beneficial impact on management is noted, there is ultimate impact on outcome. 

October 2004
K. Belkic

Israel has a National Screening Program for early detection of breast cancer. The need to continue and even expand this program was recently stressed in light of the high risk in the population. However, the optimal modalities for breast cancer screening are controversial, especially for women at risk. Mammography, the established screening method, is critically examined, and molecular imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance spectroscopy and spectroscopic imaging are explored, especially for primary breast cancer detection. MRS[1] and MRSI[2] are currently limited by their reliance on the conventional framework for data analysis in biomedical imaging, i.e., the fast Fourier transform. Recent mathematical advances in signal processing via the fast Pade transform can extract diagnostically important information, which until now has been unavailable with in vivo MRS. A clinical MRS signal illustrates the rapid and stable convergence provided by FPT[3], yielding accurate information about key metabolites and their concentrations at short acquisition times. We suggest that the next step would be to apply the FPT to in vivo MRS/MRSI signals from patients with breast cancer and to compare these to findings for normal breast tissue. The potential implications of such an optimized MRS/MRSI for breast cancer screening strategies are discussed, especially for younger women at high risk.






[1] MRS = magnetic resonance spectroscopy

[2] MRSI = magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging

[3] FPT = fast Padé transform


July 2004
E. Atar

Gadolinium-based agents are widely used in magnetic resonance imaging as contrast agents. These agents are radio-opaque enough for diagnostic imaging of the vascular tree by using digitally subtracted images as well as for imaging of the biliary system and the urinary tract. The recommended doses for gadolinium do not impair renal function or cause adverse reactions in patients with iodine sensitivity; thus patients with such conditions can safely undergo diagnostic angiography, either by MRI angiography or by catheterization using gadolinium as contrast agent, for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

June 2004
E. Atar, G. Feldman, H. Neyman, E. Tzypin, A. Belenky and M. Katz
September 2003
N. Boulman, D. Schapira, D. Militianu, A. Balbir Gurman and A.M. Nahir
August 2003
E. Lebel, D. Elstein, D. Hain, I. Hadas-Halperin, A. Zimran and M. Itzchaki
March 2003
E. Mor, M. Cohen, F. Grief, S. Lelcuk and Z. Ben-Ari
June 2002
Ron Reshef, MD, Wisam Sbeit, MD and Jesse Lachter, MD
October 2001
Dvora Aharoni, MD, Sergey Mekhmandarov, MD, Menachem Itzchaki, MD, Nurith Hiller, MD and Deborah Elstein, PhD
May 2001
Sydney Ben-Chetrit, Vidal Barchilon, MD, Ze’ev. Korzets, MD, BS, Joelle Bernheim, MD and Jacques Bernheim, MD
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel