Xiang Xu1,2, Kannie W Y Chan1,2, Linda Knutsson3, Dmitri Artemov1,4, Jiadi Xu1,2, Guanshu Liu1,2, Yoshinori Kato1,4,5, Bachchu Lal6, John Laterra6, Michael T McMahon1,2, Peter C M van Zijl1,2. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 4. Division of Cancer Imaging Research and JHU In Vivo Cellular Molecular Imaging Center, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Life Science Tokyo Advanced Research Center, Hoshi University School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tokyo, Japan. 6. Department of Neurology, Oncology, and Neuroscience, The Johns Hopkins Medicine, and The Hugo W. Moser Research Institute at Kennedy Krieger, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recently, natural d-glucose was suggested as a potential biodegradable contrast agent. The feasibility of using d-glucose for dynamic perfusion imaging was explored to detect malignant brain tumors based on blood brain barrier breakdown. METHODS: Mice were inoculated orthotopically with human U87-EGFRvIII glioma cells. Time-resolved glucose signal changes were detected using chemical exchange saturation transfer (glucoCEST) MRI. Dynamic glucose enhanced (DGE) MRI was used to measure tissue response to an intravenous bolus of d-glucose. RESULTS: DGE images of mouse brains bearing human glioma showed two times higher and persistent changes in tumor compared with contralateral brain. Area-under-curve (AUC) analysis of DGE delineated blood vessels and tumor and had contrast comparable to the AUC determined using dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI with GdDTPA, both showing a significantly higher AUC in tumor than in brain (P < 0.005). Both CEST and relaxation effects contribute to the signal change. CONCLUSION: DGE MRI is a feasible technique for studying brain tumor enhancement reflecting differences in tumor blood volume and permeability with respect to normal brain. We expect DGE will provide a low-risk and less expensive alternative to DCE MRI for imaging cancer in vulnerable populations, such as children and patients with renal impairment.
PURPOSE: Recently, natural d-glucose was suggested as a potential biodegradable contrast agent. The feasibility of using d-glucose for dynamic perfusion imaging was explored to detect malignant brain tumors based on blood brain barrier breakdown. METHODS:Mice were inoculated orthotopically with humanU87-EGFRvIII glioma cells. Time-resolved glucose signal changes were detected using chemical exchange saturation transfer (glucoCEST) MRI. Dynamic glucose enhanced (DGE) MRI was used to measure tissue response to an intravenous bolus of d-glucose. RESULTS:DGE images of mouse brains bearing humanglioma showed two times higher and persistent changes in tumor compared with contralateral brain. Area-under-curve (AUC) analysis of DGE delineated blood vessels and tumor and had contrast comparable to the AUC determined using dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI with GdDTPA, both showing a significantly higher AUC in tumor than in brain (P < 0.005). Both CEST and relaxation effects contribute to the signal change. CONCLUSION:DGE MRI is a feasible technique for studying brain tumor enhancement reflecting differences in tumor blood volume and permeability with respect to normal brain. We expect DGE will provide a low-risk and less expensive alternative to DCE MRI for imaging cancer in vulnerable populations, such as children and patients with renal impairment.
Authors: Kannie W Y Chan; Michael T McMahon; Yoshinori Kato; Guanshu Liu; Jeff W M Bulte; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Dmitri Artemov; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiang Xu; Akansha Ashvani Sehgal; Nirbhay N Yadav; John Laterra; Lindsay Blair; Jaishri Blakeley; Anina Seidemo; Jennifer M Coughlin; Martin G Pomper; Linda Knutsson; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: A Daoust; S Dodd; G Nair; N Bouraoud; S Jacobson; S Walbridge; D S Reich; A Koretsky Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.546