Wendy Ni1, Thomas Christen, Zungho Zun, Greg Zaharchuk. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA; Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: R2', the reversible component of transverse relaxation, is an important susceptibility measurement for studies of brain physiology and pathologies. In existing literature, different R2' measurement methods are used with assumption of equivalency. This study explores the choice of measurement method in healthy, young subjects at 3T. METHODS: In this study, a modified gradient-echo sampling of free induction decay and echo (GESFIDE) sequence was used to compare four standard R2' measurement methods: asymmetric spin echo (ASE), standard GESFIDE, gradient echo sampling of the spin echo (GESSE), and separate R2 and R2* mapping. RESULTS: GESSE returned lower R2' measurements than other methods (P < 0.05). Intersubject mean R2' in gray matter was found to be 2.7 s(-1) using standard GESFIDE and GESSE, versus 3.4-3.8 s(-1) using other methods. In white matter, mean R2' from GESSE was 2.3 s(-1) while other methods produced 3.7-4.3 s(-1) . R2 correction was applied to partially reduce the discrepancies between the methods, but significant differences remained, likely due to violation of the fundamental assumption of a single-compartmental tissue model, and hence monoexponential decay. CONCLUSION: R2' measurements are influenced significantly by the choice of method. Awareness of this issue is important when designing and interpreting studies that involve R2' measurements.
PURPOSE: R2', the reversible component of transverse relaxation, is an important susceptibility measurement for studies of brain physiology and pathologies. In existing literature, different R2' measurement methods are used with assumption of equivalency. This study explores the choice of measurement method in healthy, young subjects at 3T. METHODS: In this study, a modified gradient-echo sampling of free induction decay and echo (GESFIDE) sequence was used to compare four standard R2' measurement methods: asymmetric spin echo (ASE), standard GESFIDE, gradient echo sampling of the spin echo (GESSE), and separate R2 and R2* mapping. RESULTS: GESSE returned lower R2' measurements than other methods (P < 0.05). Intersubject mean R2' in gray matter was found to be 2.7 s(-1) using standard GESFIDE and GESSE, versus 3.4-3.8 s(-1) using other methods. In white matter, mean R2' from GESSE was 2.3 s(-1) while other methods produced 3.7-4.3 s(-1) . R2 correction was applied to partially reduce the discrepancies between the methods, but significant differences remained, likely due to violation of the fundamental assumption of a single-compartmental tissue model, and hence monoexponential decay. CONCLUSION: R2' measurements are influenced significantly by the choice of method. Awareness of this issue is important when designing and interpreting studies that involve R2' measurements.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Thomas Christen; Benjamin Lemasson; Nicolas Pannetier; Régine Farion; Christoph Segebarth; Chantal Rémy; Emmanuel L Barbier Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: David Paling; Daniel Tozer; Claudia Wheeler-Kingshott; R Kapoor; David H Miller; Xavier Golay Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Pascal Sati; Peter van Gelderen; Afonso C Silva; Daniel S Reich; Hellmut Merkle; Jacco A de Zwart; Jeff H Duyn Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jianli Wang; Michele L Shaffer; Paul J Eslinger; Xiaoyu Sun; Christopher W Weitekamp; Megha M Patel; Deborah Dossick; David J Gill; James R Connor; Qing X Yang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Charlie Yi Wang; Simone Coppo; Bhairav Bipin Mehta; Nicole Seiberlich; Xin Yu; Mark Alan Griswold Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Eulanca Y Liu; Jia Guo; Aaron B Simon; Frank Haist; David J Dubowitz; Richard B Buxton Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-11-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Christina Y Shu; Basavaraju G Sanganahalli; Daniel Coman; Peter Herman; Douglas L Rothman; Fahmeed Hyder Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: B Lemasson; N Pannetier; N Coquery; Ligia S B Boisserand; Nora Collomb; N Schuff; M Moseley; G Zaharchuk; E L Barbier; T Christen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Talia C Oughourlian; Jingwen Yao; Akifumi Hagiwara; David A Nathanson; Catalina Raymond; Whitney B Pope; Noriko Salamon; Albert Lai; Matthew Ji; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 2.995