Kai Herz1,2, Tobias Lindig1,3, Anagha Deshmane1, Jens Schittenhelm4, Marco Skardelly5, Benjamin Bender3, Ulrike Ernemann3, Klaus Scheffler1,6, Moritz Zaiss1. 1. Magnetic Resonance Center, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. 2. IMPRS for Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Neuropathology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 6. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to translate the T1 ρ-based dynamic glucose-enhanced (DGEρ) experiment from ultrahigh magnetic field strengths to a clinical field strength of 3 T. Although the protocol would seem to be as simple as gadolinium-enhanced imaging, several obstacles had to be addressed, including signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), robustness of contrast, and postprocessing, especially motion correction. METHODS: Spin-lock based presaturation and a 3D gradient-echo snapshot readout were optimized for 3 T with regard to robustness, chemical exchange saturation transfer effect strength, and SNR. Postprocessing steps, including dynamic B0 and motion correction, were analyzed and optimized in 7 healthy volunteers. The final protocol, including glucose injection, was applied to 3 glioblastoma patients. RESULTS: With appropriate postprocessing, motion-related artifacts could be drastically reduced, and an SNR of approximately 90 could be achieved for a single dynamic measurement. In 2 patients with blood-brain barrier breakdown, a significant glucose uptake could be observed with a DGEρ effect strength in the range of 0.4% of the water signal. Thorough analysis of possible residual motion revealed that the statistical evidence can decrease when tested against pseudo effects attributed to uncorrected motion. CONCLUSION: DGEρ imaging was optimized for clinical field strengths of 3 T, and a robust protocol was established for broader application. Early experience shows that DGEρ seems possible at 3 T and could not only be attributed to motion artifacts. Observed DGEρ maps showed unique patterns, partly matching with the T1 -ce tumor ring enhancement. However, effect sizes are small and careful clinical application is necessary.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to translate the T1 ρ-based dynamic glucose-enhanced (DGEρ) experiment from ultrahigh magnetic field strengths to a clinical field strength of 3 T. Although the protocol would seem to be as simple as gadolinium-enhanced imaging, several obstacles had to be addressed, including signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), robustness of contrast, and postprocessing, especially motion correction. METHODS: Spin-lock based presaturation and a 3D gradient-echo snapshot readout were optimized for 3 T with regard to robustness, chemical exchange saturation transfer effect strength, and SNR. Postprocessing steps, including dynamic B0 and motion correction, were analyzed and optimized in 7 healthy volunteers. The final protocol, including glucose injection, was applied to 3 glioblastomapatients. RESULTS: With appropriate postprocessing, motion-related artifacts could be drastically reduced, and an SNR of approximately 90 could be achieved for a single dynamic measurement. In 2 patients with blood-brain barrier breakdown, a significant glucose uptake could be observed with a DGEρ effect strength in the range of 0.4% of the water signal. Thorough analysis of possible residual motion revealed that the statistical evidence can decrease when tested against pseudo effects attributed to uncorrected motion. CONCLUSION: DGEρ imaging was optimized for clinical field strengths of 3 T, and a robust protocol was established for broader application. Early experience shows that DGEρ seems possible at 3 T and could not only be attributed to motion artifacts. Observed DGEρ maps showed unique patterns, partly matching with the T1 -ce tumor ring enhancement. However, effect sizes are small and careful clinical application is necessary.
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: Zheng Han; Chuheng Chen; Xiang Xu; Renyuan Bai; Verena Staedtke; Jianpan Huang; Kannie W Y Chan; Jiadi Xu; David O Kamson; Zhibo Wen; Linda Knutsson; Peter C M van Zijl; Guanshu Liu Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 4.044
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: Kai Herz; Sebastian Mueller; Or Perlman; Maxim Zaitsev; Linda Knutsson; Phillip Zhe Sun; Jinyuan Zhou; Peter van Zijl; Kerstin Heinecke; Patrick Schuenke; Christian T Farrar; Manuel Schmidt; Arnd Dörfler; Klaus Scheffler; Moritz Zaiss Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.737