Moritz Zaiss1, Kai Herz2, Anagha Deshmane2, Mina Kim3, Xavier Golay3, Tobias Lindig4, Benjamin Bender4, Ulrike Ernemann4, Klaus Scheffler5. 1. High-field Magnetic Resonance Center, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. Electronic address: moritz.zaiss@tuebingen.mpg.de. 2. High-field Magnetic Resonance Center, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Eberhard-Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 5. High-field Magnetic Resonance Center, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany; Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, Eberhard-Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dynamic CEST studies such as dynamic glucose enhanced imaging, have gained a lot of attention recently. The expected CEST effects after injection are rather small in tissue especially at clinical field strengths (0.5-2%). Small movements during the dynamic CEST measurement together with a subtraction-based evaluation can lead to pseudo CEST effects of the same order of magnitude. These artifacts are studied herein. METHODS: A brain tumor patient 3D-CEST baseline scan without glucose injection performed at 3 T is used to generate a virtual dynamic measurement introducing different kinds of simulated motion and B0 shifts. RESULTS: Minor motion (0.6 mm translations) and B0 artifacts (7 Hz shift) can lead to pseudo effects in the order of 1% in dynamic CEST imaging. Especially around tissue interfaces such as CSF borders or tumor affected areas, the pseudo effect patterns are non-intuitive and can be mistaken as dynamic agent uptake. CONCLUSION: Correction or mitigation for small motions is crucial for dynamic CEST imaging, especially in subjects with lesions. Concomitant B0 alterations can as well induce pseudo CEST effects at 3 T.
PURPOSE: Dynamic CEST studies such as dynamic glucose enhanced imaging, have gained a lot of attention recently. The expected CEST effects after injection are rather small in tissue especially at clinical field strengths (0.5-2%). Small movements during the dynamic CEST measurement together with a subtraction-based evaluation can lead to pseudo CEST effects of the same order of magnitude. These artifacts are studied herein. METHODS: A brain tumorpatient 3D-CEST baseline scan without glucose injection performed at 3 T is used to generate a virtual dynamic measurement introducing different kinds of simulated motion and B0 shifts. RESULTS: Minor motion (0.6 mm translations) and B0 artifacts (7 Hz shift) can lead to pseudo effects in the order of 1% in dynamic CEST imaging. Especially around tissue interfaces such as CSF borders or tumor affected areas, the pseudo effect patterns are non-intuitive and can be mistaken as dynamic agent uptake. CONCLUSION: Correction or mitigation for small motions is crucial for dynamic CEST imaging, especially in subjects with lesions. Concomitant B0 alterations can as well induce pseudo CEST effects at 3 T.
Authors: Xiang Xu; Akansha Ashvani Sehgal; Nirbhay N Yadav; John Laterra; Lindsay Blair; Jaishri Blakeley; Anina Seidemo; Jennifer M Coughlin; Martin G Pomper; Linda Knutsson; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jie Luo; Esra Abaci Turk; Borjan Gagoski; Natalie Copeland; Iris Y Zhou; Vanessa Young; Carolina Bibbo; Julian N Robinson; Chloe Zera; William H Barth; Drucilla J Roberts; Phillip Zhe Sun; P Ellen Grant Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2019-10
Authors: Soo Hyun Shin; Michael F Wendland; Brandon Zhang; An Tran; Albert Tang; Moriel H Vandsburger Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 3.737
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
Authors: Esau Poblador Rodriguez; Philipp Moser; Barbara Dymerska; Simon Robinson; Benjamin Schmitt; Andre van der Kouwe; Stephan Gruber; Siegfried Trattnig; Wolfgang Bogner Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 4.668