| Literature DB >> 30291654 |
Lorenz Pfleger1, Martin Gajdošík1,2, Peter Wolf1, Sabina Smajis1, Paul Fellinger1, Andre Kuehne3,4, Patrik Krumpolec1,5, Siegfried Trattnig2,6, Yvonne Winhofer1, Michael Krebs1, Martin Krššák1,2,6, Marek Chmelík2,6,7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatic disorders are often associated with changes in the concentration of phosphorus-31 (31 P) metabolites. Absolute quantification offers a way to assess those metabolites directly but introduces obstacles, especially at higher field strengths (B0 ≥ 7T).Entities:
Keywords: 7T; absolute quantification; liver; magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging; phosphorus
Year: 2018 PMID: 30291654 PMCID: PMC6586048 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging ISSN: 1053-1807 Impact factor: 4.813
Figure 1Basic experimental setup: Coronal sketches of the phantom (a) and in vivo (b) experiment on the left and the transversal localizer images through the coil center rotated 90° clockwise on the right. Note the calibration reference (cal. ref.) fixed relative to the coil (detail view, a) on the same position.
Figure 2Distribution of the raw MRS signal in the phantom measurement and numerical simulations: Measured and quantified voxel signal distribution of the 15 mM phantom through a central transversal slice with cubic interpolation (a); visualized simulations of a homogeneous cylindrical phantom underlaid with a semi‐transparent human body mask (b); and an in vivo model with the liver enhanced (c); by the combination of both transmit and receive sensitivity with adjusted transmission depth and amplitude scaling (cutoff at 4 a.u.).
Figure 3Absolute quantification: phantom validation experiment and example of an in vivo measurement: central scout images of the 25 mM phantom (a), and a hepatic region from in vivo measurement (b) with the 3D‐CSI grid and the calculated total 31P and γ‐ATP concentration distribution of selected voxels, respectively, as well as the mean value overlaid; in vivo magnitude spectra from the voxels within the orange rectangle of (b) with the yellow‐framed voxels used for absolute quantification and the voxels that fulfilled the criterion for the exclusion of a too‐high PCr signal enhanced in red (c); original spectrum of the green encircled voxel of c (red), its estimated AMARES metabolite fit (purple), and its residue (pink) (d).
Mean CVs as a Result of the Reproducibility Measurements
| [γ‐ATP] | [α‐ATP] | [GPC] | [GPE] | [Pi] | [PC] | [PE] | [UDPG] | [NADH] | [PtdC] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test‐retest mean CV ( | 5.6% | 10.5% | 8.7% | 10.1% | 11.8% | 12.9% | 11.6% | 19.9% | 19.0% | 42.2% |
| Day‐to‐day mean CV ( | 4.5% | 6.4% | 10.3% | 8.6% | 9.5% | 12.7% | 16.1% | 16.3% | 10.3% | 34.3% |
Test‐retest CVs state the variability of the metabolite concentrations of two successive measurements of a volunteer in one session, while day‐to‐day CVs represent the variation of metabolite concentrations of two single measurements on different days of a volunteer. Mean values of CV were calculated as arithmetical average over the measurement sessions and volunteers for test‐retest and day‐to‐day comparison, respectively.
Absolute 31P Concentrations (mM) in the Different Groups
| [γ‐ATP] | [α‐ATP] | [GPC] | [GPE] | [Pi] | [PC] | [PE] | [UDPG] | [NADH] | [PtdC] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YL | 2.56 ± 0.10 | 2.42 ± 0.15 | 3.31 ± 0.27 | 3.38 ± 0.87 | 1.42 ± 0.20 | 1.47 ± 0.24† | 1.61 ± 0.20 | 0.74 ± 0.17 | 1.21 ± 0.38 | 0.43 ± 0.10 |
| EL | 2.92 ± 0.39* | 2.68 ± 0.33* | 3.60 ± 0.93 | 3.59 ± 0.83 | 1.47 ± 0.17† | 1.00 ± 0.32† | 1.42 ± 0.64 | 0.81 ± 0.34 | 1.22 ± 0.36 | 0.44 ± 0.12 |
| EO | 2.38 ± 0.34* | 2.15 ± 0.28* | 4.03 ± 0.90 | 3.58 ± 0.59 | 1.17 ± 0.26† | 1.05 ± 0.40 | 1.46 ± 0.19 | 0.74 ± 0.25 | 1.22 ± 0.17 | 0.39 ± 0.27 |
| YLcorr | 2.63 ± 0.10 | 2.48 ± 0.18 | 3.40 ± 0.27 | 3.48 ± 0.93 | 1.46 ± 0.20 | 1.51 ± 0.23† | 1.65 ± 0.20 | 0.76 ± 0.18 | 1.24 ± 0.38 | 0.44 ± 0.10 |
| ELcorr | 3.00 ± 0.42 | 2.75 ± 0.37 | 3.70 ± 0.98 | 3.69 ± 0.89 | 1.51 ± 0.18 | 1.02 ± 0.33† | 1.46 ± 0.67 | 0.83 ± 0.34 | 1.25 ± 0.37 | 0.46 ± 0.12 |
| EOcorr | 2.68 ± 0.61 | 2.44 ± 0.45 | 4.24 ± 1.10 | 3.93 ± 1.02 | 1.33 ± 0.28 | 1.11 ± 0.45 | 1.65 ± 0.18 | 0.82 ± 0.35 | 1.38 ± 0.29 | 0.44 ± 0.32 |
The asterisks (*) indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) and the daggers (†) indicate P‐values below 0.1 in a metabolite concentration between the two marked groups (separately without and with HLVF correction) according to ANOVA, with post‐hoc Bonferroni multiple comparisons test.
Mean and SD of the calculated 31P metabolite concentrations of each group both not corrected and corrected for HLVF (Indicated by the index ‘corr’)
Figure 4Grouped boxplots of metabolic concentrations: comparison of selected metabolites between the three groups with and without correction for HLVF (index 'corr'). Significant differences between the two groups are marked with an asterisk (*) and P‐values below 0.1 are marked with a dagger (†). The red plus signs (+) indicate outliers of corresponding groups (more distant than 1.5 times the interquartile range), but these were not excluded from statistical calculations.
Figure 5Numerical comparison with reported values: mean values of absolute concentrations of the YL group of this study corrected for HLVF compared with the results of other studies, with PME as the sum of PC and PE, and PDE as the sum of GPC, GPE, and PtdC.
Influence of Different T1 Times Used for Saturation Correction on the Calculated Concentrations
| [γ‐ATP] | [α‐ATP] | [GPC] | [GPE] | [Pi] | [PC] | [PE] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 by Chmelík et al. | 0.50 | 0.46 | 5.94 | 6.19 | 0.70 | 3.74 | 4.41 |
| T1 by Purvis et al. | 0.57 | 0.56 | 3.90 | 4.38 | 1.34 | 2.26 | 3.92 |
| Current results using T1‐correction from Ref. 23 (mean) | 2.56 | 2.42 | 3.31 | 3.38 | 1.42 | 1.47 | 1.61 |
| Current results using T1‐correction from Ref. 26 (mean) | 2.67 | 2.53 | 2.40 | 2.61 | 1.83 | 1.05 | 1.50 |
| Results by Purvis et al. | 2.65 | 2.72 | 2.35 | 1.50 | 2.21 | 1.03 | 0.74 |
T1 times provided by Chmelík et al. (as used in our study for the listed metabolites) and Purvis et al. (both in sec); calculated metabolite concentrations of our study and T1s by Chmelík et al.; calculated metabolite concentrations of our study and T1s by Purvis et al.; and Purvis et al.'s findings (all in mM).