Changliang Su1, Lingyun Zhao1, Shihui Li1, Jingjing Jiang1, Kejia Cai2, Jingjing Shi1, Yihao Yao1, Qilin Ao3, Guiling Zhang1, Nanxi Shen1, Shan Hu1, Jiaxuan Zhang1, Yuanyuan Qin1, Wenzhen Zhu4. 1. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 JieFang Avenue, Hankou, Wuhan, 430030, People's Republic of China. 2. The Department of Radiology and Bioengineering, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 JieFang Avenue, Hankou, Wuhan, 430030, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 JieFang Avenue, Hankou, Wuhan, 430030, People's Republic of China. zhuwenzhen8612@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Using MRSI as comparison, we aimed to explore the difference between amide proton transfer (APT) MRI and conventional semi-solid magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) MRI, and to investigate if molecular APT and structural MTR can provide complimentary information in assessing brain tumors. METHODS: Seventeen brain tumor patients and 17 age- and gender-matched volunteers were included and scanned with anatomical MRI, APT and MT-weighted MRI, and MRSI. Multi-voxel choline (Cho) and N-acetylaspartic acid (NAA) signals were quantified from MRSI and compared with MTR and MTRasym(3.5ppm) contrasts averaged from corresponding voxels. Correlations between contrasts were explored voxel-by-voxel by pooling values from all voxels into Pearson's correlation analysis. Differences in correlation coefficients were tested with the Z-test (set at p<0.05). RESULTS: APT and MT provide good contrast and quantitative parameters in tumor imaging, as do the metabolite (Cho and NAA) maps. MTRasym(3.5ppm) significantly correlated with MTR (R=-0.61, p<0.0001), Cho (R=0.568, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=-0.619, p<0.0001) in tumors, and MTR also significantly correlated with Cho (R=-0.346, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=0.624, p<0.0001). In healthy volunteers, MTRasym(3.5ppm) was non-significantly correlated with MTR (R=-0.049, p=0.239), Cho (R=0.030, p=0.478) and NAA (R=-0.083, p=0.046). Significant correlations were found among MTR with Cho (R=0.199, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=0.263, p<0.0001) in the group of healthy volunteers with lower correlation R values than those in tumor patients. CONCLUSIONS: APT and MT could provide independent and supplementary information for the comprehensive assessment of molecular and structural changes due to brain tumor cancerogenesis. KEY POINTS: • MTR asym(3.5ppm) positively correlated with Cho while negatively with NAA in tumors. • MTR positively correlated with NAA while negatively with Cho in tumors. • Combining APT/MT provides molecular and structural information similarly to MRSI.
OBJECTIVES: Using MRSI as comparison, we aimed to explore the difference between amide proton transfer (APT) MRI and conventional semi-solid magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) MRI, and to investigate if molecular APT and structural MTR can provide complimentary information in assessing brain tumors. METHODS: Seventeen brain tumorpatients and 17 age- and gender-matched volunteers were included and scanned with anatomical MRI, APT and MT-weighted MRI, and MRSI. Multi-voxel choline (Cho) and N-acetylaspartic acid (NAA) signals were quantified from MRSI and compared with MTR and MTRasym(3.5ppm) contrasts averaged from corresponding voxels. Correlations between contrasts were explored voxel-by-voxel by pooling values from all voxels into Pearson's correlation analysis. Differences in correlation coefficients were tested with the Z-test (set at p<0.05). RESULTS: APT and MT provide good contrast and quantitative parameters in tumor imaging, as do the metabolite (Cho and NAA) maps. MTRasym(3.5ppm) significantly correlated with MTR (R=-0.61, p<0.0001), Cho (R=0.568, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=-0.619, p<0.0001) in tumors, and MTR also significantly correlated with Cho (R=-0.346, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=0.624, p<0.0001). In healthy volunteers, MTRasym(3.5ppm) was non-significantly correlated with MTR (R=-0.049, p=0.239), Cho (R=0.030, p=0.478) and NAA (R=-0.083, p=0.046). Significant correlations were found among MTR with Cho (R=0.199, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=0.263, p<0.0001) in the group of healthy volunteers with lower correlation R values than those in tumorpatients. CONCLUSIONS: APT and MT could provide independent and supplementary information for the comprehensive assessment of molecular and structural changes due to brain tumor cancerogenesis. KEY POINTS: • MTR asym(3.5ppm) positively correlated with Cho while negatively with NAA in tumors. • MTR positively correlated with NAA while negatively with Cho in tumors. • Combining APT/MT provides molecular and structural information similarly to MRSI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Amide proton transfer; Brain tumor; Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging; Magnetization transfer
Authors: M A van Buchem; S C Steens; H A Vrooman; A H Zwinderman; J C McGowan; M Rassek; V Engelbrecht Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: F A Howe; S J Barton; S A Cudlip; M Stubbs; D E Saunders; M Murphy; P Wilkins; K S Opstad; V L Doyle; M A McLean; B A Bell; J R Griffiths Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jacqueline T Chen; D Louis Collins; Harold L Atkins; Mark S Freedman; Douglas L Arnold Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Moritz Zaiss; Linda Knutsson; Phillip Zhe Sun; Sung Soo Ahn; Silvio Aime; Peter Bachert; Jaishri O Blakeley; Kejia Cai; Michael A Chappell; Min Chen; Daniel F Gochberg; Steffen Goerke; Hye-Young Heo; Shanshan Jiang; Tao Jin; Seong-Gi Kim; John Laterra; Daniel Paech; Mark D Pagel; Ji Eun Park; Ravinder Reddy; Akihiko Sakata; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; A Dean Sherry; Seth A Smith; Greg J Stanisz; Pia C Sundgren; Osamu Togao; Moriel Vandsburger; Zhibo Wen; Yin Wu; Yi Zhang; Wenzhen Zhu; Zhongliang Zu; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.737