Adam W Autry1, Jeremy W Gordon1, Lucas Carvajal1, Azma Mareyam2, Hsin-Yu Chen1, Ilwoo Park3, Daniele Mammoli1, Maryam Vareth1,4, Susan M Chang5, Lawrence L Wald2,6,7, Duan Xu1, Daniel B Vigneron1, Sarah J Nelson1,8, Yan Li1. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco. 2. Athinoula A Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, Gwangju, Korea. 4. Berkeley Institute for Data Science (BIDS), University of California Berkeley, Berkeley. 5. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of an 8-channel surface coil/clamshell transmitter and 32-channel head array coil/birdcage transmitter for hyperpolarized 13 C brain metabolic imaging. METHODS: To determine the field homogeneity of the radiofrequency transmitters, B1 + mapping was performed on an ethylene glycol head phantom and evaluated by means of the double angle method. Using a 3D echo-planar imaging sequence, coil sensitivity and noise-only phantom data were acquired with the 8- and 32-channel receiver arrays, and compared against data from the birdcage in transceiver mode. Multislice frequency-specific 13 C dynamic echo-planar imaging was performed on a patient with a brain tumor for each hardware configuration following injection of hyperpolarized [1-13 C]pyruvate. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was evaluated from pre-whitened phantom and temporally summed patient data after coil combination based on optimal weights. RESULTS: The birdcage transmitter produced more uniform B1 + compared with the clamshell: 0.07 versus 0.12 (fractional error). Phantom experiments conducted with matched lateral housing separation demonstrated 8- versus 32-channel mean transceiver-normalized SNR performance: 0.91 versus 0.97 at the head center; 6.67 versus 2.08 on the sides; 0.66 versus 2.73 at the anterior; and 0.67 versus 3.17 on the posterior aspect. While the 8-channel receiver array showed SNR benefits along lateral aspects, the 32-channel array exhibited greater coverage and a more uniform coil-combined profile. Temporally summed, parameter-normalized patient data showed SNRmean,slice ratios (8-channel/32-channel) ranging 0.5-2.00 from apical to central brain. White matter lactate-to-pyruvate ratios were conserved across hardware: 0.45 ± 0.12 (8-channel) versus 0.43 ± 0.14 (32-channel). CONCLUSION: The 8- and 32-channel hardware configurations each have advantages in particular brain anatomy.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of an 8-channel surface coil/clamshell transmitter and 32-channel head array coil/birdcage transmitter for hyperpolarized 13 C brain metabolic imaging. METHODS: To determine the field homogeneity of the radiofrequency transmitters, B1 + mapping was performed on an ethylene glycol head phantom and evaluated by means of the double angle method. Using a 3D echo-planar imaging sequence, coil sensitivity and noise-only phantom data were acquired with the 8- and 32-channel receiver arrays, and compared against data from the birdcage in transceiver mode. Multislice frequency-specific 13 C dynamic echo-planar imaging was performed on a patient with a brain tumor for each hardware configuration following injection of hyperpolarized [1-13 C]pyruvate. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was evaluated from pre-whitened phantom and temporally summed patient data after coil combination based on optimal weights. RESULTS: The birdcage transmitter produced more uniform B1 + compared with the clamshell: 0.07 versus 0.12 (fractional error). Phantom experiments conducted with matched lateral housing separation demonstrated 8- versus 32-channel mean transceiver-normalized SNR performance: 0.91 versus 0.97 at the head center; 6.67 versus 2.08 on the sides; 0.66 versus 2.73 at the anterior; and 0.67 versus 3.17 on the posterior aspect. While the 8-channel receiver array showed SNR benefits along lateral aspects, the 32-channel array exhibited greater coverage and a more uniform coil-combined profile. Temporally summed, parameter-normalized patient data showed SNRmean,slice ratios (8-channel/32-channel) ranging 0.5-2.00 from apical to central brain. White matterlactate-to-pyruvate ratios were conserved across hardware: 0.45 ± 0.12 (8-channel) versus 0.43 ± 0.14 (32-channel). CONCLUSION: The 8- and 32-channel hardware configurations each have advantages in particular brain anatomy.
Authors: Charles A McKenzie; Ernest N Yeh; Michael A Ohliger; Mark D Price; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Charles H Cunningham; Justin Y C Lau; Albert P Chen; Benjamin J Geraghty; William J Perks; Idan Roifman; Graham A Wright; Kim A Connelly Journal: Circ Res Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Hsin-Yu Chen; Adam W Autry; Jeffrey R Brender; Shun Kishimoto; Murali C Krishna; Maryam Vareth; Robert A Bok; Galen D Reed; Lucas Carvajal; Jeremy W Gordon; Mark van Criekinge; David E Korenchan; Albert P Chen; Duan Xu; Yan Li; Susan M Chang; John Kurhanewicz; Peder E Z Larson; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Brian T Chung; Hsin-Yu Chen; Jeremy Gordon; Daniele Mammoli; Renuka Sriram; Adam W Autry; Lydia M Le Page; Myriam M Chaumeil; Peter Shin; James Slater; Chou T Tan; Chris Suszczynski; Susan Chang; Yan Li; Robert A Bok; Sabrina M Ronen; Peder E Z Larson; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: A W Autry; I Park; C Kline; H-Y Chen; J W Gordon; S Raber; C Hoffman; Y Kim; K Okamoto; D B Vigneron; J M Lupo; M Prados; Y Li; D Xu; S Mueller Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Matthew Wilcox; Stephen Ogier; Sergey Cheshkov; Ivan Dimitrov; Craig Malloy; Steven Wright; Mary McDougall Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.756
Authors: Adam W Autry; Jeremy W Gordon; Hsin-Yu Chen; Marisa LaFontaine; Robert Bok; Mark Van Criekinge; James B Slater; Lucas Carvajal; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Susan M Chang; Jennifer L Clarke; Janine M Lupo; Duan Xu; Peder E Z Larson; Daniel B Vigneron; Yan Li Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Collin J Harlan; Zhan Xu; Christopher M Walker; Keith A Michel; Galen D Reed; James A Bankson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Juan Diego Sánchez-Heredia; Rie B Olin; Mary A McLean; Christoffer Laustsen; Adam E Hansen; Lars G Hanson; Jan Henrik Ardenkjær-Larsen Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 2.229