Tao Jin1, Bistra Iordanova2, T Kevin Hitchens3, Michel Modo1,2, Ping Wang1, Hunter Mehrens4, Seong-Gi Kim5,6. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Neurobiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Physics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Center for Neuroscience Imaging Research, Institute for Basic Science, Suwon, Korea. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Glucose uptake and metabolism can be measured by chemical exchange-sensitive spin-lock (CESL) MRI with an administration of glucose or its analogs. This study investigates the sensitivity, the spatiotemporal characteristics, and the signal source of glucoCESL with a 9L rat brain tumor model. METHODS: Dynamic CESL MRI with intravenous injection of D-glucose, 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2DG), and L-glucose were measured and compared with gadolinium-based dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. RESULTS: The CESL signals with an injection of glucose or analogs have faster and larger changes in tumors than normal brain tissue. In tumors, the CESL signal with 2DG injection has larger and slower peak response than that with D-glucose due to the accumulation of 2DG and 2DG-6-phosphate in the intracellular compartment, whereas L-glucose, which cannot be transported intracellularly by glucose transporters, only induces a small change. The initial glucoCESL maps (< 4 minutes) are qualitatively similar to DCE maps, whereas later maps (> 4 minutes) show more widespread responses. The rise times of D-glucose-CESL and 2DG-CESL signals in the tumor are slower than that of DCE. Our data suggest that the initial CESL contrast primarily reflects a passive increase of glucose content in the extracellular space of tumors due to a higher vascular permeability, whereas the later period may have a significant contribution from the uptake/metabolism of glucose in the intracellular compartment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that glucoCESL MRI has both extracellular and intracellular contributions, and can be a useful tool for measurements of both vascular permeability and glucose uptake in tumors.
PURPOSE:Glucose uptake and metabolism can be measured by chemical exchange-sensitive spin-lock (CESL) MRI with an administration of glucose or its analogs. This study investigates the sensitivity, the spatiotemporal characteristics, and the signal source of glucoCESL with a 9L ratbrain tumor model. METHODS: Dynamic CESL MRI with intravenous injection of D-glucose, 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2DG), and L-glucose were measured and compared with gadolinium-based dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. RESULTS: The CESL signals with an injection of glucose or analogs have faster and larger changes in tumors than normal brain tissue. In tumors, the CESL signal with 2DG injection has larger and slower peak response than that with D-glucose due to the accumulation of 2DG and 2DG-6-phosphate in the intracellular compartment, whereas L-glucose, which cannot be transported intracellularly by glucose transporters, only induces a small change. The initial glucoCESL maps (< 4 minutes) are qualitatively similar to DCE maps, whereas later maps (> 4 minutes) show more widespread responses. The rise times of D-glucose-CESL and 2DG-CESL signals in the tumor are slower than that of DCE. Our data suggest that the initial CESL contrast primarily reflects a passive increase of glucose content in the extracellular space of tumors due to a higher vascular permeability, whereas the later period may have a significant contribution from the uptake/metabolism of glucose in the intracellular compartment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that glucoCESL MRI has both extracellular and intracellular contributions, and can be a useful tool for measurements of both vascular permeability and glucose uptake in tumors.
Authors: M J de Leon; A Convit; O T Wolf; C Y Tarshish; S DeSanti; H Rusinek; W Tsui; E Kandil; A J Scherer; A Roche; A Imossi; E Thorn; M Bobinski; C Caraos; P Lesbre; D Schlyer; J Poirier; B Reisberg; J Fowler Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-08-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Lukas D Weberling; Pascal J Kieslich; Oliver Eidel; Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Sabine Heiland; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Martin Bendszus Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Ben R Dickie; Tao Jin; Ping Wang; Rainer Hinz; William Harris; Hervé Boutin; Geoff Jm Parker; Laura M Parkes; Julian C Matthews Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 6.960
Authors: Anina Seidemo; Patrick M Lehmann; Anna Rydhög; Ronnie Wirestam; Gunther Helms; Yi Zhang; Nirbhay N Yadav; Pia C Sundgren; Peter C M van Zijl; Linda Knutsson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.478