Alexander Gussew1, Marko Erdtel, Patrick Hiepe, Reinhard Rzanny, Jürgen R Reichenbach. 1. Medical Physics Group, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology I, Jena University Hospital-Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Philosophenweg 3, Gebäude 5, 07743, Jena, Germany. alexander.gussew@med.uni-jena.de
Abstract
OBJECT: Referencing metabolite intensities to the tissue water intensity is commonly applied to determine metabolite concentrations from in vivo (1)H-MRS brain data. However, since the water concentration and relaxation properties differ between grey matter, white matter and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the volume fractions of these compartments have to be considered in MRS voxels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The impact of partial volume correction was validated by phantom measurements in voxels containing mixtures of solutions with different NAA and water concentrations as well as by analyzing in vivo (1)H-MRS brain data acquired with various voxel compositions. RESULTS: Phantom measurements indicated substantial underestimation of NAA concentrations when assuming homogeneously composed voxels, especially for voxels containing solution, which simulated CSF (error: ≤ 92%). This bias was substantially reduced by taking into account voxel composition (error: ≤ 10%). In the in vivo study, tissue correction reduced the overall variation of quantified metabolites by up to 35% and revealed the expected metabolic differences between various brain tissues. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue composition affects extraction of metabolite concentrations and may cause misinterpretations when comparing measurements performed with different voxel sizes. This variation can be reduced by considering the different tissue types by means of combined analysis of spectroscopic and imaging data.
OBJECT: Referencing metabolite intensities to the tissue water intensity is commonly applied to determine metabolite concentrations from in vivo (1)H-MRS brain data. However, since the water concentration and relaxation properties differ between grey matter, white matter and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the volume fractions of these compartments have to be considered in MRS voxels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The impact of partial volume correction was validated by phantom measurements in voxels containing mixtures of solutions with different NAA and water concentrations as well as by analyzing in vivo (1)H-MRS brain data acquired with various voxel compositions. RESULTS: Phantom measurements indicated substantial underestimation of NAA concentrations when assuming homogeneously composed voxels, especially for voxels containing solution, which simulated CSF (error: ≤ 92%). This bias was substantially reduced by taking into account voxel composition (error: ≤ 10%). In the in vivo study, tissue correction reduced the overall variation of quantified metabolites by up to 35% and revealed the expected metabolic differences between various brain tissues. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue composition affects extraction of metabolite concentrations and may cause misinterpretations when comparing measurements performed with different voxel sizes. This variation can be reduced by considering the different tissue types by means of combined analysis of spectroscopic and imaging data.
Authors: Mark W Woolrich; Saad Jbabdi; Brian Patenaude; Michael Chappell; Salima Makni; Timothy Behrens; Christian Beckmann; Mark Jenkinson; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Charles Gasparovic; Tao Song; Deidre Devier; H Jeremy Bockholt; Arvind Caprihan; Paul G Mullins; Stefan Posse; Rex E Jung; Leslie A Morrison Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Małgorzata Marjańska; J Riley McCarten; James Hodges; Laura S Hemmy; Andrea Grant; Dinesh K Deelchand; Melissa Terpstra Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Kelly J Brunst; Patrick H Ryan; Mekibib Altaye; Kimberly Yolton; Thomas Maloney; Travis Beckwith; Grace LeMasters; Kim M Cecil Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-05-11 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Stephanie Njau; Shantanu H Joshi; Randall Espinoza; Amber M Leaver; Megha Vasavada; Antonio Marquina; Roger P Woods; Katherine L Narr Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Małgorzata Marjańska; Dinesh K Deelchand; James S Hodges; J Riley McCarten; Laura S Hemmy; Andrea Grant; Melissa Terpstra Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Eric C Porges; Adam J Woods; Damon G Lamb; John B Williamson; Ronald A Cohen; Richard A E Edden; Ashley D Harris Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 6.556