Ileana Hancu1. 1. GE Global Research Center, Niskayuna, New York 12309, USA. hancu@crd.ge.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the pulse sequence and acquisition parameters that result in the most accurate and repeatable measurements of glutamate (Glu) concentration in the brain at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulations were performed to compare the accuracy and repeatability of 11 pulse sequences and acquisition parameters, within four general classes (PRESS, STEAM, Carr-Purcell PRESS [CPRESS] and TE averaged PRESS [JPRESS]), the majority of which were previously suggested as optimal for Glu detection. Three of the simulated acquisitions were implemented in a clinical scanner and measures of repeatability in vivo were compared to their simulated values. RESULTS: Good agreement was demonstrated between simulated and experimentally determined measures of repeatability. Among the acquisitions considered, a CPRESS sequence with minimal echo time, together with, possibly, a short TE PRESS sequence, result in the most repeatable within session Glu measurements, while slightly overestimating the Glu concentration. Excellent accuracy is demonstrated by the simulations for a JPRESS sequence, at the expense of lower repeatability than optimal PRESS or CPRESS sequences. CONCLUSION: Further proof of concept is presented toward validation of a simulation approach to understand pulse sequence performance in measuring the concentration of a given metabolite. Improved within session Glu measurement repeatability is predicted for CPRESS and demonstrated in vivo.
PURPOSE: To identify the pulse sequence and acquisition parameters that result in the most accurate and repeatable measurements of glutamate (Glu) concentration in the brain at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulations were performed to compare the accuracy and repeatability of 11 pulse sequences and acquisition parameters, within four general classes (PRESS, STEAM, Carr-Purcell PRESS [CPRESS] and TE averaged PRESS [JPRESS]), the majority of which were previously suggested as optimal for Glu detection. Three of the simulated acquisitions were implemented in a clinical scanner and measures of repeatability in vivo were compared to their simulated values. RESULTS: Good agreement was demonstrated between simulated and experimentally determined measures of repeatability. Among the acquisitions considered, a CPRESS sequence with minimal echo time, together with, possibly, a short TE PRESS sequence, result in the most repeatable within session Glu measurements, while slightly overestimating the Glu concentration. Excellent accuracy is demonstrated by the simulations for a JPRESS sequence, at the expense of lower repeatability than optimal PRESS or CPRESS sequences. CONCLUSION: Further proof of concept is presented toward validation of a simulation approach to understand pulse sequence performance in measuring the concentration of a given metabolite. Improved within session Glu measurement repeatability is predicted for CPRESS and demonstrated in vivo.
Authors: Martin Kanowski; Jörn Kaufmann; Jürgen Braun; Johannes Bernarding; Claus Tempelmann Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ralph Hurd; Napapon Sailasuta; Radhika Srinivasan; Daniel B Vigneron; Daniel Pelletier; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Dmitry Frank; Ruslan Kuts; Philip Tsenter; Benjamin F Gruenbaum; Yulia Grinshpun; Vladislav Zvenigorodsky; Ilan Shelef; Dmitry Natanel; Evgeny Brotfain; Alexander Zlotnik; Matthew Boyko Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Florian Riese; Anton Gietl; Niklaus Zölch; Anke Henning; Ruth O'Gorman; Andrea M Kälin; Sandra E Leh; Alfred Buck; Geoffrey Warnock; Richard A E Edden; Roger Luechinger; Christoph Hock; Spyros Kollias; Lars Michels Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Paul G Mullins; David J McGonigle; Ruth L O'Gorman; Nicolaas A J Puts; Rishma Vidyasagar; C John Evans; Richard A E Edden Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Paul E Croarkin; Paul A Nakonezny; Christopher A Wall; Lauren L Murphy; Shirlene M Sampson; Mark A Frye; John D Port Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Richard J Maddock; Michael H Buonocore; Amber R Miller; Jong H Yoon; Steffan K Soosman; April M Unruh Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 13.382