PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to implement time efficient data acquisition and reconstruction methods for 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of gliomas at a field strength of 3T using parallel imaging techniques. METHODS: The point spread functions, signal to noise ratio (SNR), spatial resolution, metabolite intensity distributions and Cho:NAA ratio of 3D ellipsoidal, 3D sensitivity encoding (SENSE) and 3D combined ellipsoidal and SENSE (e-SENSE) k-space sampling schemes were compared with conventional k-space data acquisition methods. RESULTS: The 3D SENSE and e-SENSE methods resulted in similar spectral patterns as the conventional MRSI methods. The Cho:NAA ratios were highly correlated (P<.05 for SENSE and P<.001 for e-SENSE) with the ellipsoidal method and all methods exhibited significantly different spectral patterns in tumor regions compared to normal appearing white matter. The geometry factors ranged between 1.2 and 1.3 for both the SENSE and e-SENSE spectra. When corrected for these factors and for differences in data acquisition times, the empirical SNRs were similar to values expected based upon theoretical grounds. The effective spatial resolution of the SENSE spectra was estimated to be same as the corresponding fully sampled k-space data, while the spectra acquired with ellipsoidal and e-SENSE k-space samplings were estimated to have a 2.36-2.47-fold loss in spatial resolution due to the differences in their point spread functions. CONCLUSION: The 3D SENSE method retained the same spatial resolution as full k-space sampling but with a 4-fold reduction in scan time and an acquisition time of 9.28 min. The 3D e-SENSE method had a similar spatial resolution as the corresponding ellipsoidal sampling with a scan time of 4:36 min. Both parallel imaging methods provided clinically interpretable spectra with volumetric coverage and adequate SNR for evaluating Cho, Cr and NAA.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to implement time efficient data acquisition and reconstruction methods for 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of gliomas at a field strength of 3T using parallel imaging techniques. METHODS: The point spread functions, signal to noise ratio (SNR), spatial resolution, metabolite intensity distributions and Cho:NAA ratio of 3D ellipsoidal, 3D sensitivity encoding (SENSE) and 3D combined ellipsoidal and SENSE (e-SENSE) k-space sampling schemes were compared with conventional k-space data acquisition methods. RESULTS: The 3D SENSE and e-SENSE methods resulted in similar spectral patterns as the conventional MRSI methods. The Cho:NAA ratios were highly correlated (P<.05 for SENSE and P<.001 for e-SENSE) with the ellipsoidal method and all methods exhibited significantly different spectral patterns in tumor regions compared to normal appearing white matter. The geometry factors ranged between 1.2 and 1.3 for both the SENSE and e-SENSE spectra. When corrected for these factors and for differences in data acquisition times, the empirical SNRs were similar to values expected based upon theoretical grounds. The effective spatial resolution of the SENSE spectra was estimated to be same as the corresponding fully sampled k-space data, while the spectra acquired with ellipsoidal and e-SENSE k-space samplings were estimated to have a 2.36-2.47-fold loss in spatial resolution due to the differences in their point spread functions. CONCLUSION: The 3D SENSE method retained the same spatial resolution as full k-space sampling but with a 4-fold reduction in scan time and an acquisition time of 9.28 min. The 3D e-SENSE method had a similar spatial resolution as the corresponding ellipsoidal sampling with a scan time of 4:36 min. Both parallel imaging methods provided clinically interpretable spectra with volumetric coverage and adequate SNR for evaluating Cho, Cr and NAA.
Authors: Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Houchun H Hu; Andrew V Barger; Clifton R Haider; David G Kruger; James F Glockner; John Huston; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Isabelle Catalaa; Roland Henry; William P Dillon; Edward E Graves; Tracy R McKnight; Ying Lu; Daniel B Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Fa-Hsuan Lin; Shang-Yueh Tsai; Ricardo Otazo; Arvind Caprihan; Lawrence L Wald; John W Belliveau; Stefan Posse Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Antoinette A Chan; Aubrey Lau; Andrea Pirzkall; Susan M Chang; Lynn J Verhey; David Larson; Michael W McDermott; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Shang-Yueh Tsai; Ricardo Otazo; Stefan Posse; Yi-Ru Lin; Hsiao-Wen Chung; Lawrence L Wald; Graham C Wiggins; Fa-Hsuan Lin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ilwoo Park; Albert P Chen; Matthew L Zierhut; Esin Ozturk-Isik; Daniel B Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2010-07-23 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Martin Wilson; Ovidiu Andronesi; Peter B Barker; Robert Bartha; Alberto Bizzi; Patrick J Bolan; Kevin M Brindle; In-Young Choi; Cristina Cudalbu; Ulrike Dydak; Uzay E Emir; Ramon G Gonzalez; Stephan Gruber; Rolf Gruetter; Rakesh K Gupta; Arend Heerschap; Anke Henning; Hoby P Hetherington; Petra S Huppi; Ralph E Hurd; Kejal Kantarci; Risto A Kauppinen; Dennis W J Klomp; Roland Kreis; Marijn J Kruiskamp; Martin O Leach; Alexander P Lin; Peter R Luijten; Małgorzata Marjańska; Andrew A Maudsley; Dieter J Meyerhoff; Carolyn E Mountford; Paul G Mullins; James B Murdoch; Sarah J Nelson; Ralph Noeske; Gülin Öz; Julie W Pan; Andrew C Peet; Harish Poptani; Stefan Posse; Eva-Maria Ratai; Nouha Salibi; Tom W J Scheenen; Ian C P Smith; Brian J Soher; Ivan Tkáč; Daniel B Vigneron; Franklyn A Howe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: B Strasser; M Považan; G Hangel; L Hingerl; M Chmelik; S Gruber; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 4.668