Christopher M Walker1, David Fuentes1, Peder E Z Larson2, Vikas Kundra3,4, Daniel B Vigneron2, James A Bankson1. 1. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Various excitation strategies have been proposed for dynamic imaging of hyperpolarized agents such as [1-13 C]-pyruvate, but the impact of these strategies on quantitative evaluation of signal evolution remains unclear. To better understand their relative performance, we compared the accuracy and repeatability of measurements made using variable excitation angle strategies and conventional constant excitation angle strategies. METHODS: Signal evolution for constant and variable excitation angle schedules was simulated using a pharmacokinetic model of hyperpolarized pyruvate with 2 chemical pools and 2 physical compartments. Noisy synthetic data were then fit using the same pharmacokinetic model with the apparent chemical exchange term as an unknown, and fit results were compared with simulation parameters to determine accuracy and reproducibility. RESULTS: Constant excitations and a variable excitation strategy that maximizes the HP lactate signal yielded data that supported quantitative analyses with similar accuracy and repeatability. Variable excitation angle strategies that were designed to produce a constant signal level resulted in lower signal and worse quantitative accuracy and repeatability, particularly for longer acquisition times. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that either constant excitation angle or variable excitation angles that attempt to maximize total signal, as opposed to maintaining a constant signal level, are preferred for metabolic quantification using hyperpolarized pyruvate.
PURPOSE: Various excitation strategies have been proposed for dynamic imaging of hyperpolarized agents such as [1-13 C]-pyruvate, but the impact of these strategies on quantitative evaluation of signal evolution remains unclear. To better understand their relative performance, we compared the accuracy and repeatability of measurements made using variable excitation angle strategies and conventional constant excitation angle strategies. METHODS: Signal evolution for constant and variable excitation angle schedules was simulated using a pharmacokinetic model of hyperpolarized pyruvate with 2 chemical pools and 2 physical compartments. Noisy synthetic data were then fit using the same pharmacokinetic model with the apparent chemical exchange term as an unknown, and fit results were compared with simulation parameters to determine accuracy and reproducibility. RESULTS: Constant excitations and a variable excitation strategy that maximizes the HP lactate signal yielded data that supported quantitative analyses with similar accuracy and repeatability. Variable excitation angle strategies that were designed to produce a constant signal level resulted in lower signal and worse quantitative accuracy and repeatability, particularly for longer acquisition times. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that either constant excitation angle or variable excitation angles that attempt to maximize total signal, as opposed to maintaining a constant signal level, are preferred for metabolic quantification using hyperpolarized pyruvate.
Authors: John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Kevin Brindle; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Arnaud Comment; Charles H Cunningham; Ralph J Deberardinis; Gary G Green; Martin O Leach; Sunder S Rajan; Rahim R Rizi; Brian D Ross; Warren S Warren; Craig R Malloy Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Chang-Yu Sun; Christopher M Walker; Keith A Michel; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Stephen Y Lai; James A Bankson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Klaes Golman; René In't Zandt; Mathilde Lerche; Rikard Pehrson; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Magnus Karlsson; Pernille Rose Jensen; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Mathilde H Lerche Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Sam E Day; Mikko I Kettunen; Ferdia A Gallagher; De-En Hu; Mathilde Lerche; Jan Wolber; Klaes Golman; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Kevin M Brindle Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-10-28 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Sarah J Nelson; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Peder E Z Larson; Andrea L Harzstark; Marcus Ferrone; Mark van Criekinge; Jose W Chang; Robert Bok; Ilwoo Park; Galen Reed; Lucas Carvajal; Eric J Small; Pamela Munster; Vivian K Weinberg; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Albert P Chen; Ralph E Hurd; Liv-Ingrid Odegardstuen; Fraser J Robb; James Tropp; Jonathan A Murray Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Matthew E Merritt; Crystal Harrison; Charles Storey; F Mark Jeffrey; A Dean Sherry; Craig R Malloy Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-12-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Junjie Ma; Jun Chen; Galen D Reed; Edward P Hackett; Crystal E Harrison; James Ratnakar; Rolf F Schulte; Vlad G Zaha; Craig R Malloy; Jae Mo Park Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Jeremy W Gordon; Hsin-Yu Chen; Nicholas Dwork; Shuyu Tang; Peder E Z Larson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Jason C Crane; Jeremy W Gordon; Hsin-Yu Chen; Adam W Autry; Yan Li; Marram P Olson; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Peder E Z Larson; Duan Xu Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 4.044