Zhengwei Zhou1,2, Pei Han1,3, Bill Zhou1,4, Anthony G Christodoulou1, Jaime L Shaw1,2, Zixin Deng1,2, Debiao Li1,2. 1. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Bioengineering, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 4. University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is an increased interest to determine the exchange rate using CEST to provide pH information. However, current CEST quantification methods require lengthy scan times and do not address magnetization transfer effects. The purpose of this work was to apply the magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) concept to CEST to achieve more efficient and accurate exchange rate quantification. METHODS: The proposed CEST fingerprinting method used varying saturation powers and saturation times to create unique signal evolutions for different exchange rates. The acquired signal was matched to a predefined dictionary to determine the exchange rate. The magnetization transfer effects were also addressed in the framework of CEST fingerprinting: The simulated dictionary could predict the signal curves without magnetization transfer effects, and comparing the dictionary to the acquired signals allowed the correction of the magnetization transfer effects. The CEST fingerprinting method was compared with the conventional pulsed quantitative CEST method using omega plots in the creatine phantom study. RESULTS: The CEST fingerprinting method has a significantly reduced scan time (10 minutes versus 50 minutes) while providing more accurate exchange rate quantification using literature values as the reference. CONCLUSION: In this study, we demonstrate that CEST fingerprinting is more efficient (5 times faster) compared with pulsed quantitative CEST. It is also shown that the results of the proposed CEST fingerprinting technique are much closer to the literature values than pulsed quantitative CEST at 3 T.
PURPOSE: There is an increased interest to determine the exchange rate using CEST to provide pH information. However, current CEST quantification methods require lengthy scan times and do not address magnetization transfer effects. The purpose of this work was to apply the magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) concept to CEST to achieve more efficient and accurate exchange rate quantification. METHODS: The proposed CEST fingerprinting method used varying saturation powers and saturation times to create unique signal evolutions for different exchange rates. The acquired signal was matched to a predefined dictionary to determine the exchange rate. The magnetization transfer effects were also addressed in the framework of CEST fingerprinting: The simulated dictionary could predict the signal curves without magnetization transfer effects, and comparing the dictionary to the acquired signals allowed the correction of the magnetization transfer effects. The CEST fingerprinting method was compared with the conventional pulsed quantitative CEST method using omega plots in the creatine phantom study. RESULTS: The CEST fingerprinting method has a significantly reduced scan time (10 minutes versus 50 minutes) while providing more accurate exchange rate quantification using literature values as the reference. CONCLUSION: In this study, we demonstrate that CEST fingerprinting is more efficient (5 times faster) compared with pulsed quantitative CEST. It is also shown that the results of the proposed CEST fingerprinting technique are much closer to the literature values than pulsed quantitative CEST at 3 T.
Authors: Zhongliang Zu; Vaibhav A Janve; Ke Li; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Jean-Francois Payen; David A Wilson; Richard J Traystman; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Nat Med Date: 2003-07-20 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Michael T McMahon; Assaf A Gilad; Jinyuan Zhou; Phillip Z Sun; Jeff W M Bulte; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: W Thomas Dixon; Jimin Ren; Angelo J M Lubag; James Ratnakar; Elena Vinogradov; Ileana Hancu; Robert E Lenkinski; A Dean Sherry Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Vipul R Sheth; Yuguo Li; Liu Qi Chen; Christine M Howison; Chris A Flask; Mark D Pagel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tom Hilbert; Ding Xia; Kai Tobias Block; Zidan Yu; Riccardo Lattanzi; Daniel K Sodickson; Tobias Kober; Martijn A Cloos Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Or Perlman; Kai Herz; Moritz Zaiss; Ouri Cohen; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Debra F McGivney; Rasim Boyacıoğlu; Yun Jiang; Megan E Poorman; Nicole Seiberlich; Vikas Gulani; Kathryn E Keenan; Mark A Griswold; Dan Ma Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Peter C M van Zijl; Kevin Brindle; Hanzhang Lu; Peter B Barker; Richard Edden; Nirbhay Yadav; Linda Knutsson Journal: Curr Opin Chem Biol Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 8.972
Authors: Or Perlman; Hirotaka Ito; Assaf A Gilad; Michael T McMahon; E Antonio Chiocca; Hiroshi Nakashima; Christian T Farrar Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 4.379