Scott C Beeman1, Ying-Bo Shui2, Carlos J Perez-Torres1, John A Engelbach1, Joseph J H Ackerman1,3,4,5, Joel R Garbow1,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 3. Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 5. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to quantify the relationship between the (1) H longitudinal relaxation rate constant, R1 , and oxygen (O2 ) concentration (relaxivity, r1 ) in tissue and to quantify O2 -driven changes in R1 (ΔR1 ) during a breathing gas challenge in normal brain, radiation-induced lesions, and tumor lesions. METHODS: R1 data were collected in control-state mice (n = 4) during three different breathing gas (and thus tissue O2 ) conditions. In parallel experiments, pO2 was measured in the thalamus of control-state mice (n = 4) under the same breathing gas conditions using an O2 -sensitive microprobe. The relaxivity of tissue O2 was calculated using the R1 and pO2 data. R1 data were collected in control-state (n = 4) mice, a glioma model (n = 7), and a radiation necrosis model (n = 6) during two breathing gas (thus tissue O2 ) conditions. R1 and ΔR1 were calculated for each cohort. RESULTS: O2 r1 in the brain was 9 × 10(-4) ± 3 × 10(-4) mm Hg(-1) · s(-1) at 4.7T. R1 and ΔR1 measurements distinguished radiation necrosis from tumor (P< 0.03 and P< 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: The relaxivity of O2 in the brain is determined. R1 and ΔR1 measurements differentiate tumor lesions from radiation necrosis lesions in the mouse models. These pathologies are difficult to distinguish by traditional imaging techniques; O2 -driven changes in R1 holds promise in this regard. Magn Reson Med 75:2442-2447, 2016.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to quantify the relationship between the (1) H longitudinal relaxation rate constant, R1 , and oxygen (O2 ) concentration (relaxivity, r1 ) in tissue and to quantify O2 -driven changes in R1 (ΔR1 ) during a breathing gas challenge in normal brain, radiation-induced lesions, and tumor lesions. METHODS: R1 data were collected in control-state mice (n = 4) during three different breathing gas (and thus tissue O2 ) conditions. In parallel experiments, pO2 was measured in the thalamus of control-state mice (n = 4) under the same breathing gas conditions using an O2 -sensitive microprobe. The relaxivity of tissue O2 was calculated using the R1 and pO2 data. R1 data were collected in control-state (n = 4) mice, a glioma model (n = 7), and a radiation necrosis model (n = 6) during two breathing gas (thus tissue O2 ) conditions. R1 and ΔR1 were calculated for each cohort. RESULTS:O2 r1 in the brain was 9 × 10(-4) ± 3 × 10(-4) mm Hg(-1) · s(-1) at 4.7T. R1 and ΔR1 measurements distinguished radiation necrosis from tumor (P< 0.03 and P< 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: The relaxivity of O2 in the brain is determined. R1 and ΔR1 measurements differentiate tumor lesions from radiation necrosis lesions in the mouse models. These pathologies are difficult to distinguish by traditional imaging techniques; O2 -driven changes in R1 holds promise in this regard. Magn Reson Med 75:2442-2447, 2016.
Authors: James L Tatum; Gary J Kelloff; Robert J Gillies; Jeffrey M Arbeit; J Martin Brown; K S Clifford Chao; J Donald Chapman; William C Eckelman; Anthony W Fyles; Amato J Giaccia; Richard P Hill; Cameron J Koch; Murali Cherukuri Krishna; Kenneth A Krohn; Jason S Lewis; Ralph P Mason; Giovanni Melillo; Anwar R Padhani; Garth Powis; Joseph G Rajendran; Richard Reba; Simon P Robinson; Gregg L Semenza; Harold M Swartz; Peter Vaupel; David Yang; Barbara Croft; John Hoffman; Guoying Liu; Helen Stone; Daniel Sullivan Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: N J Taylor; H Baddeley; K A Goodchild; M E Powell; M Thoumine; L A Culver; J J Stirling; M I Saunders; P J Hoskin; H Phillips; A R Padhani; J R Griffiths Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David A Hormuth; Anna G Sorace; John Virostko; Richard G Abramson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Pedro Enriquez-Navas; Robert Gillies; John D Hazle; Ralph P Mason; C Chad Quarles; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Junzhong Xu; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Bruce A Berkowitz; Jacob Lenning; Nikita Khetarpal; Catherine Tran; Johnny Y Wu; Ali M Berri; Kristin Dernay; E Mark Haacke; Fatema Shafie-Khorassani; Robert H Podolsky; John C Gant; Shaniya Maimaiti; Olivier Thibault; Geoffrey G Murphy; Brian M Bennett; Robin Roberts Journal: FASEB J Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Donghan M Yang; Tatsuya J Arai; James W Campbell; Jenifer L Gerberich; Heling Zhou; Ralph P Mason Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Derek A White; Zhang Zhang; Li Li; Jeni Gerberich; Strahinja Stojadinovic; Peter Peschke; Ralph P Mason Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Inema E Orukari; Joshua S Siegel; Nicole M Warrington; Grant A Baxter; Adam Q Bauer; Joshua S Shimony; Joshua B Rubin; Joseph P Culver Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Jessica K R Boult; Yann Jamin; Muhammad Babur; Katherine G Finegan; Kaye J Williams; Ross A Little; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Andrew R Reynolds; John C Waterton; Simon P Robinson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 12.701