Tamar M van Veenendaal1, Walter H Backes1, Frank C G van Bussel1, Richard A E Edden2, Nicolaas A J Puts2, Albert P Aldenkamp3, Jacobus F A Jansen4. 1. Departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands; School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA; F.M. Kirby Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, 707 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 3. School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Departments of Neurology and Neuropsychology, Epilepsy Center Kempenhaeghe, P.O. Box 61, 5590 AB, Heeze, The Netherlands. 4. Departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands; School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jacobus.jansen@mumc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While PRESS is often employed to measure glutamate concentrations, MEGA-PRESS enables simultaneous Glx (glutamate and glutamine) and GABA measurements. This study aimed to compare validation, repeatability, and concordance of different approaches for glutamate quantification at 3T to aid future studies in their selection of the appropriate sequence and quantification method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine phantoms with different glutamate and glutamine concentrations and five healthy participants were scanned twice to assess respectively the validation and repeatability of measurements with PRESS and MEGA-PRESS. To assess concordance between the different methods, results from 95 human participants were compared. PRESS, MEGA-PRESS (i.e. difference), and the MEGA-PRESS OFF spectra were analyzed with both LCModel and Gannet. RESULTS: In vitro, excellent agreement was shown between actual and measured glutamate concentrations for all measurements (r>0.98). In vivo CVs were better for PRESS (2.9%) than MEGA-PRESS (4.9%) and MEGA-PRESS OFF (4.2%). However, the concordance between the sequences was low (PRESS and MEGA-PRESS OFF, r=0.3) to modest (MEGA-PRESS versus MEGA-PRESS OFF, r=0.8). CONCLUSION: Both PRESS and MEGA-PRESS can be employed to measure in vivo glutamate concentrations, although PRESS shows a better repeatability. Comparisons between in vivo glutamate measures of different sequences however need to be interpreted cautiously.
PURPOSE: While PRESS is often employed to measure glutamate concentrations, MEGA-PRESS enables simultaneous Glx (glutamate and glutamine) and GABA measurements. This study aimed to compare validation, repeatability, and concordance of different approaches for glutamate quantification at 3T to aid future studies in their selection of the appropriate sequence and quantification method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine phantoms with different glutamate and glutamine concentrations and five healthy participants were scanned twice to assess respectively the validation and repeatability of measurements with PRESS and MEGA-PRESS. To assess concordance between the different methods, results from 95 humanparticipants were compared. PRESS, MEGA-PRESS (i.e. difference), and the MEGA-PRESS OFF spectra were analyzed with both LCModel and Gannet. RESULTS: In vitro, excellent agreement was shown between actual and measured glutamate concentrations for all measurements (r>0.98). In vivo CVs were better for PRESS (2.9%) than MEGA-PRESS (4.9%) and MEGA-PRESS OFF (4.2%). However, the concordance between the sequences was low (PRESS and MEGA-PRESS OFF, r=0.3) to modest (MEGA-PRESS versus MEGA-PRESS OFF, r=0.8). CONCLUSION: Both PRESS and MEGA-PRESS can be employed to measure in vivo glutamate concentrations, although PRESS shows a better repeatability. Comparisons between in vivo glutamate measures of different sequences however need to be interpreted cautiously.
Authors: David R Roalf; Valerie J Sydnor; Madison Woods; David A Wolk; J Cobb Scott; Ravinder Reddy; Paul J Moberg Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Christian Stefan Legind; Brian Villumsen Broberg; René Christiaan William Mandl; Rachel Brouwer; Simon Jesper Anhøj; Rikke Hilker; Maria Høj Jensen; Philip McGuire; Hilleke Hulshoff Pol; Birgitte Fagerlund; Egill Rostrup; Birte Yding Glenthøj Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Tiffany Bell; Elodie S Boudes; Rachelle S Loo; Gareth J Barker; David J Lythgoe; Richard A E Edden; R Marc Lebel; Martin Wilson; Ashley D Harris Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Alexander R Craven; Pallab K Bhattacharyya; William T Clarke; Ulrike Dydak; Richard A E Edden; Lars Ersland; Pravat K Mandal; Mark Mikkelsen; James B Murdoch; Jamie Near; Reuben Rideaux; Deepika Shukla; Min Wang; Martin Wilson; Helge J Zöllner; Kenneth Hugdahl; Georg Oeltzschner Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 4.478
Authors: Yenisel Cruz-Almeida; Megan Forbes; Ronald C Cohen; Adam J Woods; Roger B Fillingim; Joseph L Riley; Eric S Porges Journal: Pain Rep Date: 2021-09-03
Authors: Aimie L Peek; Andrew M Leaver; Sheryl Foster; Nicolaas A Puts; Georg Oeltzschner; Luke Henderson; Graham Galloway; Karl Ng; Kathryn Refshauge; Trudy Rebbeck Journal: J Headache Pain Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 7.277