Hye-Young Heo1,2, Yi Zhang1,3, Shanshan Jiang1, Jinyuan Zhou1,2. 1. Divison of MR Research, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Key Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Biomedical Engineering & Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the dependence of magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry at 3.5 ppm (MTRasym (3.5 ppm)), quantitative amide proton transfer (APT# ), and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE# ) signals or contrasts on experimental imaging parameters. METHODS: Modified Bloch equation-based simulations using 2-pool and 5-pool exchange models and in vivo rat brain tumor experiments at 4.7T were performed with varied RF saturation power levels, saturation lengths, and relaxation delays. The MTRasym (3.5 ppm), APT# , and NOE# contrasts between tumor and normal tissues were compared among different experimental parameters. RESULTS: The MTRasym (3.5 ppm) image contrasts between tumor and normal tissues initially increased with the RF saturation length, and the maxima occurred at 1.6-2 s under relatively high RF saturation powers (>2.1 μT) and at a longer saturation length under relatively low RF saturation powers (<1.3 μT). The APT# contrasts also increased with the RF saturation length but peaked at longer RF saturation lengths relative to MTRasym (3.5 ppm). The NOE# contrasts were either positive or negative, depending on the experimental parameters applied. CONCLUSION: Tumor MTRasym (3.5 ppm), APT# , and NOE# contrasts can be maximized at different saturation parameters. The maximum MTRasym (3.5 ppm) contrast can be obtained with a relatively longer RF saturation length (several seconds) at a relatively lower RF saturation power.
PURPOSE: To investigate the dependence of magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry at 3.5 ppm (MTRasym (3.5 ppm)), quantitative amide proton transfer (APT# ), and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE# ) signals or contrasts on experimental imaging parameters. METHODS: Modified Bloch equation-based simulations using 2-pool and 5-pool exchange models and in vivo ratbrain tumor experiments at 4.7T were performed with varied RF saturation power levels, saturation lengths, and relaxation delays. The MTRasym (3.5 ppm), APT# , and NOE# contrasts between tumor and normal tissues were compared among different experimental parameters. RESULTS: The MTRasym (3.5 ppm) image contrasts between tumor and normal tissues initially increased with the RF saturation length, and the maxima occurred at 1.6-2 s under relatively high RF saturation powers (>2.1 μT) and at a longer saturation length under relatively low RF saturation powers (<1.3 μT). The APT# contrasts also increased with the RF saturation length but peaked at longer RF saturation lengths relative to MTRasym (3.5 ppm). The NOE# contrasts were either positive or negative, depending on the experimental parameters applied. CONCLUSION:Tumor MTRasym (3.5 ppm), APT# , and NOE# contrasts can be maximized at different saturation parameters. The maximum MTRasym (3.5 ppm) contrast can be obtained with a relatively longer RF saturation length (several seconds) at a relatively lower RF saturation power.
Authors: Phillip Zhe Sun; Enfeng Wang; Jerry S Cheung; Xiaoan Zhang; Thomas Benner; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Craig K Jones; Alan Huang; Jiadi Xu; Richard A E Edden; Michael Schär; Jun Hua; Nikita Oskolkov; Domenico Zacà; Jinyuan Zhou; Michael T McMahon; Jay J Pillai; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Daniel Paech; Moritz Zaiss; Jan-Eric Meissner; Johannes Windschuh; Benedikt Wiestler; Peter Bachert; Jan Oliver Neumann; Philipp Kickingereder; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Wolfgang Wick; Armin Michael Nagel; Sabine Heiland; Mark Edward Ladd; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.240
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