BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Theoretically, proton ((1)H) MR spectroscopy at a higher field strength has the advantages of higher signal-to-noise ratio and improved spectral resolution. We therefore compared the ability of single-voxel (1)H MR spectroscopy at 1.5 and 3 T to diagnostically discriminate among cognitively normal elderly subjects, patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: At both 1.5 and 3 T, we studied 41 cognitively normal elderly subjects, 20 patients with MCI, and 20 patients with AD. In each subject, (1)H MR spectroscopy was performed at TEs of 30 and 135 ms and from voxels placed over the posterior cingulate gyri. RESULTS: Average line widths and interexamination variability of metabolite ratios were higher at 3 T than at 1.5 T. Consistent quantification of glutamine (Gln) + glutamate/creatine (Cr) and Gln/Cr peak ratios occurred at 3 T but not at 1.5 T. Choline (Cho)/Cr (at TE = 135 ms) and myo-inositol (MI)/Cr were higher and N-acetylaspartate (NAA)/Cr (at TE = 135 ms) and NAA/MI were lower in patients with MCI than in cognitively normal subjects only at 1.5 T. MI/Cr and Cho/Cr were higher and NAA/Cr and NAA/MI were lower in patients with AD than in cognitively normal subjects at both 1.5 and 3 T. Differentiation of patients with AD from cognitively normal subjects by using the NAA/MI data was similar at both field strengths (P >.05). CONCLUSION: With currently available technology, the diagnostic performance of (1)H MR spectroscopy in patients with MCI and those with AD was not better at 3 T than at 1.5 T.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Theoretically, proton ((1)H) MR spectroscopy at a higher field strength has the advantages of higher signal-to-noise ratio and improved spectral resolution. We therefore compared the ability of single-voxel (1)H MR spectroscopy at 1.5 and 3 T to diagnostically discriminate among cognitively normal elderly subjects, patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: At both 1.5 and 3 T, we studied 41 cognitively normal elderly subjects, 20 patients with MCI, and 20 patients with AD. In each subject, (1)H MR spectroscopy was performed at TEs of 30 and 135 ms and from voxels placed over the posterior cingulate gyri. RESULTS: Average line widths and interexamination variability of metabolite ratios were higher at 3 T than at 1.5 T. Consistent quantification of glutamine (Gln) + glutamate/creatine (Cr) and Gln/Cr peak ratios occurred at 3 T but not at 1.5 T. Choline (Cho)/Cr (at TE = 135 ms) and myo-inositol (MI)/Cr were higher and N-acetylaspartate (NAA)/Cr (at TE = 135 ms) and NAA/MI were lower in patients with MCI than in cognitively normal subjects only at 1.5 T. MI/Cr and Cho/Cr were higher and NAA/Cr and NAA/MI were lower in patients with AD than in cognitively normal subjects at both 1.5 and 3 T. Differentiation of patients with AD from cognitively normal subjects by using the NAA/MI data was similar at both field strengths (P >.05). CONCLUSION: With currently available technology, the diagnostic performance of (1)H MR spectroscopy in patients with MCI and those with AD was not better at 3 T than at 1.5 T.
Authors: K Kantarci; C R Jack; Y C Xu; N G Campeau; P C O'Brien; G E Smith; R J Ivnik; B F Boeve; E Kokmen; E G Tangalos; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-07-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: M Catani; A Cherubini; R Howard; R Tarducci; G P Pelliccioli; M Piccirilli; G Gobbi; U Senin; P Mecocci Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2001-08-08 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: E M Reiman; R J Caselli; L S Yun; K Chen; D Bandy; S Minoshima; S N Thibodeau; D Osborne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-03-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: H Randall Griffith; Ozioma C Okonkwo; Jan A den Hollander; Katherine Belue; Jacqueline Copeland; Lindy E Harrell; John C Brockington; David G Clark; Daniel C Marson Journal: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn Date: 2010-04-06
Authors: John R Moffett; Brian Ross; Peethambaran Arun; Chikkathur N Madhavarao; Aryan M A Namboodiri Journal: Prog Neurobiol Date: 2007-01-05 Impact factor: 11.685
Authors: Lidia Glodzik; Marc Sollberger; Achim Gass; Amit Gokhale; Henry Rusinek; James S Babb; Jochen G Hirsch; Michael Amann; Andreas U Monsch; Oded Gonen Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2015 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Jonathan Graff-Radford; Bradley F Boeve; Melissa E Murray; Tanis J Ferman; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Timothy G Lesnick; Mandie Maroney-Smith; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey Gunter; Glenn E Smith; David S Knopman; Clifford R Jack; Dennis W Dickson; Ronald C Petersen; Kejal Kantarci Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 4.673