Hye-Young Heo1,2, Craig K Jones1,2, Jun Hua1,2, Nirbhay Yadav1,2, Shruti Agarwal3, Jinyuan Zhou1,2, Peter C M van Zijl1,2, Jay J Pillai3. 1. Division of MR Research, Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, 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. Division of Neuroradiology, Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the relationship of amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) signal intensities with respect to different World Health Organization (WHO) brain tumor grades (II to IV) at 7T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: APT-based and NOE-based signals at 7T using low-power steady-state chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) were compared among de novo primary gliomas of different WHO grades (II to IV). The quantitative APT and NOE signals, calculated by fitting approach using extrapolated semisolid MT reference (EMR) signals, were compared with the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry (MTRasym ) analysis, commonly used in APT-weighted MRI. RESULTS: The observed NOE signals of all glioma grades were significantly lower than normal brain tissue (P < 0.01). NOE signals significantly differed between low-grade (II) gliomas and high-grade (III, IV) gliomas (P < 0.05). APT signals showed no difference between the tumor regions for any glioma grades (M = 3.08%, 2.64%, and 3.10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.81% ∼ 3.33%, 2.36% ∼ 2.91%, and 2.85% ∼ 3.36% for grade II, III, and IV, respectively), and between normal brain tissue and all glioma grades (P = 0.08, M = 4.29% and 2.94%, 95% CI = 3.57% ∼ 4.99% and 2.47% ∼ 3.41% for normal and average grade II, III, and IV), while MTRasym differed significantly between normal tissue and all glioma grades (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: NOE contributes substantially to APT-weighted MRI at 7T at low RF saturation power and provides a promising biomarker for glioma grading.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:41-50.
PURPOSE: To explore the relationship of amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) signal intensities with respect to different World Health Organization (WHO) brain tumor grades (II to IV) at 7T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: APT-based and NOE-based signals at 7T using low-power steady-state chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) were compared among de novo primary gliomas of different WHO grades (II to IV). The quantitative APT and NOE signals, calculated by fitting approach using extrapolated semisolid MT reference (EMR) signals, were compared with the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry (MTRasym ) analysis, commonly used in APT-weighted MRI. RESULTS: The observed NOE signals of all glioma grades were significantly lower than normal brain tissue (P < 0.01). NOE signals significantly differed between low-grade (II) gliomas and high-grade (III, IV) gliomas (P < 0.05). APT signals showed no difference between the tumor regions for any glioma grades (M = 3.08%, 2.64%, and 3.10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.81% ∼ 3.33%, 2.36% ∼ 2.91%, and 2.85% ∼ 3.36% for grade II, III, and IV, respectively), and between normal brain tissue and all glioma grades (P = 0.08, M = 4.29% and 2.94%, 95% CI = 3.57% ∼ 4.99% and 2.47% ∼ 3.41% for normal and average grade II, III, and IV), while MTRasym differed significantly between normal tissue and all glioma grades (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:NOE contributes substantially to APT-weighted MRI at 7T at low RF saturation power and provides a promising biomarker for glioma grading.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:41-50.
Authors: Craig K Jones; Daniel Polders; Jun Hua; He Zhu; Hans J Hoogduin; Jinyuan Zhou; Peter Luijten; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-14 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Craig K Jones; Alan Huang; Jiadi Xu; Richard A E Edden; Michael Schär; Jun Hua; Nikita Oskolkov; Domenico Zacà; Jinyuan Zhou; Michael T McMahon; Jay J Pillai; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kejia Cai; Mohammad Haris; Anup Singh; Feliks Kogan; Joel H Greenberg; Hari Hariharan; John A Detre; Ravinder Reddy Journal: Nat Med Date: 2012-01-22 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Daniel Paech; Moritz Zaiss; Jan-Eric Meissner; Johannes Windschuh; Benedikt Wiestler; Peter Bachert; Jan Oliver Neumann; Philipp Kickingereder; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Wolfgang Wick; Armin Michael Nagel; Sabine Heiland; Mark Edward Ladd; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hye-Young Heo; Yi Zhang; Tina M Burton; Shanshan Jiang; Yansong Zhao; Peter C M van Zijl; Richard Leigh; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Eugene C Lin; Hua Li; Zhongliang Zu; Elizabeth A Louie; Christopher L Lankford; Richard D Dortch; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hye-Young Heo; Zheng Han; Shanshan Jiang; Michael Schär; Peter C M van Zijl; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 6.556