Mohammad Sabati1,2, Sulaiman Sheriff1, Meng Gu3, Juan Wei4, Henry Zhu4, Peter B Barker4, Daniel M Spielman3, Jeffry R Alger5, Andrew A Maudsley1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 4. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and the F.M. Kirby Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Neurology and Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess volumetric proton MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the human brain on multivendor MRI instruments. METHODS: Echo-planar spectroscopic imaging was developed on instruments from three manufacturers, with matched specifications and acquisition protocols that accounted for differences in sampling performance, radiofrequency (RF) power, and data formats. Intersite reproducibility was evaluated for signal-normalized maps of N-acetylaspartate (NAA), creatine (Cre), and choline using phantom and human subject measurements. Comparative analyses included metrics for spectral quality, spatial coverage, and mean values in atlas-registered brain regions. RESULTS: Intersite differences for phantom measurements were less than 1.7% for individual metabolites and less than 0.2% for ratio measurements. Spatial uniformity ranged from 79% to 91%. The human studies found differences of mean values in the temporal lobe, but good agreement in other white matter regions, with maximum differences relative to their mean of under 3.2%. For NAA/Cre, the maximum difference was 1.8%. In gray matter, a significant difference was observed for frontal lobe NAA. Primary causes of intersite differences were attributed to shim quality, B0 drift, and accuracy of RF excitation. Correlation coefficients for measurements at each site were over 0.60, indicating good reliability. CONCLUSION: A volumetric intensity-normalized MRSI acquisition can be implemented in a comparable manner across multivendor MR instruments.
PURPOSE: To assess volumetric proton MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the human brain on multivendor MRI instruments. METHODS: Echo-planar spectroscopic imaging was developed on instruments from three manufacturers, with matched specifications and acquisition protocols that accounted for differences in sampling performance, radiofrequency (RF) power, and data formats. Intersite reproducibility was evaluated for signal-normalized maps of N-acetylaspartate (NAA), creatine (Cre), and choline using phantom and human subject measurements. Comparative analyses included metrics for spectral quality, spatial coverage, and mean values in atlas-registered brain regions. RESULTS: Intersite differences for phantom measurements were less than 1.7% for individual metabolites and less than 0.2% for ratio measurements. Spatial uniformity ranged from 79% to 91%. The human studies found differences of mean values in the temporal lobe, but good agreement in other white matter regions, with maximum differences relative to their mean of under 3.2%. For NAA/Cre, the maximum difference was 1.8%. In gray matter, a significant difference was observed for frontal lobe NAA. Primary causes of intersite differences were attributed to shim quality, B0 drift, and accuracy of RF excitation. Correlation coefficients for measurements at each site were over 0.60, indicating good reliability. CONCLUSION: A volumetric intensity-normalized MRSI acquisition can be implemented in a comparable manner across multivendor MR instruments.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 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: Bhaswati Roy; Rakesh K Gupta; Andrew A Maudsley; Rishi Awasthi; Sulaiman Sheriff; Meng Gu; Nuzhat Husain; Sudipta Mohakud; Sanjay Behari; Chandra M Pandey; Ram K S Rathore; Daniel M Spielman; Jeffry R Alger Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-02-02 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Lidia M Nagae-Poetscher; David Bonekamp; Peter B Barker; Larry J Brant; Walter E Kaufmann; Alena Horská Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mark Mikkelsen; Peter B Barker; Pallab K Bhattacharyya; Maiken K Brix; Pieter F Buur; Kim M Cecil; Kimberly L Chan; David Y-T Chen; Alexander R Craven; Koen Cuypers; Michael Dacko; Niall W Duncan; Ulrike Dydak; David A Edmondson; Gabriele Ende; Lars Ersland; Fei Gao; Ian Greenhouse; Ashley D Harris; Naying He; Stefanie Heba; Nigel Hoggard; Tun-Wei Hsu; Jacobus F A Jansen; Alayar Kangarlu; Thomas Lange; R Marc Lebel; Yan Li; Chien-Yuan E Lin; Jy-Kang Liou; Jiing-Feng Lirng; Feng Liu; Ruoyun Ma; Celine Maes; Marta Moreno-Ortega; Scott O Murray; Sean Noah; Ralph Noeske; Michael D Noseworthy; Georg Oeltzschner; James J Prisciandaro; Nicolaas A J Puts; Timothy P L Roberts; Markus Sack; Napapon Sailasuta; Muhammad G Saleh; Michael-Paul Schallmo; Nicholas Simard; Stephan P Swinnen; Martin Tegenthoff; Peter Truong; Guangbin Wang; Iain D Wilkinson; Hans-Jörg Wittsack; Hongmin Xu; Fuhua Yan; Chencheng Zhang; Vadim Zipunnikov; Helge J Zöllner; Richard A E Edden Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Xiao-Qi Ding; Andrew A Maudsley; Mohammad Sabati; Sulaiman Sheriff; Birte Schmitz; Martin Schütze; Paul Bronzlik; Kai G Kahl; Heinrich Lanfermann Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Yue Zhang; Edward Taub; Nouha Salibi; Gitendra Uswatte; Andrew A Maudsley; Sulaiman Sheriff; Brent Womble; Victor W Mark; David C Knight Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Zhongxu An; Vivek Tiwari; Sandeep K Ganji; Jeannie Baxter; Michael Levy; Marco C Pinho; Edward Pan; Elizabeth A Maher; Toral R Patel; Bruce E Mickey; Changho Choi Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Saumya S Gurbani; Eduard Schreibmann; Andrew A Maudsley; James Scott Cordova; Brian J Soher; Harish Poptani; Gaurav Verma; Peter B Barker; Hyunsuk Shim; Lee A D Cooper Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ashley D Harris; Nicolaas A J Puts; S Andrea Wijtenburg; Laura M Rowland; Mark Mikkelsen; Peter B Barker; C John Evans; Richard A E Edden Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Claudiu V Schirda; Tiejun Zhao; Victor E Yushmanov; Yoojin Lee; Gena R Ghearing; Frank S Lieberman; Ashok Panigrahy; Hoby P Hetherington; Jullie W Pan Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.668