Hye-Young Heo1,2, Dong-Hoon Lee1, Yi Zhang1, Xuna Zhao1, Shanshan Jiang1, Min Chen3, Jinyuan Zhou1,2. 1. Divison of MR Research, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of four CEST imaging metrics for brain tumors, at varied saturation power levels and magnetic field strengths (3-9.4 Tesla (T)). METHODS: A five-pool proton exchange model (free water, semisolid, amide, amine, and NOE-related protons) was used for the simulations. For the in vivo study, eight glioma-bearing rats were scanned at 4.7 T. The CEST ratio (CESTR), CESTR normalized with the reference value (CESTRnr ), inverse Z-spectrum-based (MTRRex ), and apparent exchange-related relaxation (AREX) were compared. RESULTS: The simulated CEST signal intensities using MTRRex and AREX were substantially increased at relatively high radiofrequency (RF) saturation powers at 3 T and 4.7 T, whereas CESTR and CESTRnr metrics remained relatively stable. There were tremendously high MTRRex and AREX signals around the water frequency at all field strengths because of the small denominators. In the rat tumor study at 4.7 T, both CESTR and CESTRnr showed clear contrasts in the tumor with respect to the normal tissue across all saturation power levels (0.5-3 μT), whereas the AREX showed negligible to negative insignificant contrasts. CONCLUSIONS: CEST metrics must be carefully selected based on the different experimental settings. CESTR and CESTRnr are more reliable at 3 T (a clinical field strength) and 4.7 T. Magn Reson Med 77:1853-1865, 2017.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of four CEST imaging metrics for brain tumors, at varied saturation power levels and magnetic field strengths (3-9.4 Tesla (T)). METHODS: A five-pool proton exchange model (free water, semisolid, amide, amine, and NOE-related protons) was used for the simulations. For the in vivo study, eight glioma-bearing rats were scanned at 4.7 T. The CEST ratio (CESTR), CESTR normalized with the reference value (CESTRnr ), inverse Z-spectrum-based (MTRRex ), and apparent exchange-related relaxation (AREX) were compared. RESULTS: The simulated CEST signal intensities using MTRRex and AREX were substantially increased at relatively high radiofrequency (RF) saturation powers at 3 T and 4.7 T, whereas CESTR and CESTRnr metrics remained relatively stable. There were tremendously high MTRRex and AREX signals around the water frequency at all field strengths because of the small denominators. In the rattumor study at 4.7 T, both CESTR and CESTRnr showed clear contrasts in the tumor with respect to the normal tissue across all saturation power levels (0.5-3 μT), whereas the AREX showed negligible to negative insignificant contrasts. CONCLUSIONS: CEST metrics must be carefully selected based on the different experimental settings. CESTR and CESTRnr are more reliable at 3 T (a clinical field strength) and 4.7 T. Magn Reson Med 77:1853-1865, 2017.
Authors: Guanshu Liu; Assaf A Gilad; Jeff W M Bulte; Peter C M van Zijl; Michael T McMahon Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.161
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: 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: Shanshan Jiang; Tianyu Zou; Charles G Eberhart; Maria A V Villalobos; Hye-Young Heo; Yi Zhang; Yu Wang; Xianlong Wang; Hao Yu; Yongxing Du; Peter C M van Zijl; Zhibo Wen; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-16 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
Authors: Lee Sze Foo; George Harston; Amit Mehndiratta; Wun-She Yap; Yan Chai Hum; Khin Wee Lai; Shahizon Azura Mohamed Mukari; Faizah Mohd Zaki; Yee Kai Tee Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08