Daniel Coman1, Dana C Peters1, John J Walsh2, Lynn J Savic1,3, Steffen Huber1, Albert J Sinusas1,4, MingDe Lin1,5, Julius Chapiro1, R Todd Constable1, Douglas L Rothman1,2, James S Duncan1,2, Fahmeed Hyder1,2. 1. Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Institute of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Visage Imaging, Inc., San Diego, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate feasibility of developing a noninvasive extracellular pH (pHe ) mapping method on a clinical MRI scanner for molecular imaging of liver cancer. METHODS: In vivo pHe mapping has been demonstrated on preclinical scanners (e.g., 9.4T, 11.7T) with Biosensor Imaging of Redundant Deviation in Shifts (BIRDS), where the pHe readout by 3D chemical shift imaging (CSI) depends on hyperfine shifts emanating from paramagnetic macrocyclic chelates like TmDOTP5- which upon extravasation from blood resides in the extracellular space. We implemented BIRDS-based pHe mapping on a clinical 3T Siemens scanner, where typically diamagnetic 1 H signals are detected using millisecond-long radiofrequency (RF) pulses, and 1 H shifts span over ±10 ppm with long transverse (T2 , 102 ms) and longitudinal (T1 , 103 ms) relaxation times. We modified this 3D-CSI method for ultra-fast acquisition with microsecond-long RF pulses, because even at 3T the paramagnetic 1 H shifts of TmDOTP5- have millisecond-long T2 and T1 and ultra-wide chemical shifts (±200 ppm) as previously observed in ultra-high magnetic fields. RESULTS: We validated BIRDS-based pH in vitro with a pH electrode. We measured pHe in a rabbit model for liver cancer using VX2 tumors, which are highly vascularized and hyperglycolytic. Compared to intratumoral pHe (6.8 ± 0.1; P < 10-9 ) and tumor's edge pHe (6.9 ± 0.1; P < 10-7 ), liver parenchyma pHe was significantly higher (7.2 ± 0.1). Tumor localization was confirmed with histopathological markers of necrosis (hematoxylin and eosin), glucose uptake (glucose transporter 1), and tissue acidosis (lysosome-associated membrane protein 2). CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates feasibility and potential clinical translatability of high-resolution pHe mapping to monitor tumor aggressiveness and therapeutic outcome, all to improve personalized cancer treatment planning.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate feasibility of developing a noninvasive extracellular pH (pHe ) mapping method on a clinical MRI scanner for molecular imaging of liver cancer. METHODS: In vivo pHe mapping has been demonstrated on preclinical scanners (e.g., 9.4T, 11.7T) with Biosensor Imaging of Redundant Deviation in Shifts (BIRDS), where the pHe readout by 3D chemical shift imaging (CSI) depends on hyperfine shifts emanating from paramagnetic macrocyclic chelates like TmDOTP5- which upon extravasation from blood resides in the extracellular space. We implemented BIRDS-based pHe mapping on a clinical 3T Siemens scanner, where typically diamagnetic 1 H signals are detected using millisecond-long radiofrequency (RF) pulses, and 1 H shifts span over ±10 ppm with long transverse (T2 , 102 ms) and longitudinal (T1 , 103 ms) relaxation times. We modified this 3D-CSI method for ultra-fast acquisition with microsecond-long RF pulses, because even at 3T the paramagnetic 1 H shifts of TmDOTP5- have millisecond-long T2 and T1 and ultra-wide chemical shifts (±200 ppm) as previously observed in ultra-high magnetic fields. RESULTS: We validated BIRDS-based pH in vitro with a pH electrode. We measured pHe in a rabbit model for liver cancer using VX2 tumors, which are highly vascularized and hyperglycolytic. Compared to intratumoral pHe (6.8 ± 0.1; P < 10-9 ) and tumor's edge pHe (6.9 ± 0.1; P < 10-7 ), liver parenchyma pHe was significantly higher (7.2 ± 0.1). Tumor localization was confirmed with histopathological markers of necrosis (hematoxylin and eosin), glucose uptake (glucose transporter 1), and tissue acidosis (lysosome-associated membrane protein 2). CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates feasibility and potential clinical translatability of high-resolution pHe mapping to monitor tumor aggressiveness and therapeutic outcome, all to improve personalized cancer treatment planning.
Authors: Eleni Liapi; Jean-Francois H Geschwind; Mustafa Vali; Afsheen A Khwaja; Veronica Prieto-Ventura; Manon Buijs; Josephina A Vossen; Shanmugasudaram Ganapathy-Kanniappan; Shanmugasudaram Ganapathy; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M L García-Martín; G Hérigault; C Rémy; R Farion; P Ballesteros; J A Coles; S Cerdán; A Ziegler Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Arig Ibrahim Hashim; Xiaomeng Zhang; Jonathan W Wojtkowiak; Gary V Martinez; Robert J Gillies Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Julius Chapiro; Surojit Sur; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Shanmugasundaram Ganapathy-Kanniappan; Juvenal Reyes; Rafael Duran; Sivarajan Chettiar Thiruganasambandam; Cassandra Rae Moats; MingDe Lin; Weibo Luo; Phuoc T Tran; Joseph M Herman; Gregg L Semenza; Andrew J Ewald; Bert Vogelstein; Jean-François Geschwind Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rafael Duran; Sahar Mirpour; Vasily Pekurovsky; Shanmugasundaram Ganapathy-Kanniappan; Cory F Brayton; Toby C Cornish; Boris Gorodetski; Juvenal Reyes; Julius Chapiro; Rüdiger E Schernthaner; Constantine Frangakis; MingDe Lin; Jessica D Sun; Charles P Hart; Jean-François Geschwind Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daniel Coman; Julius Chapiro; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Isabel Theresa Schobert; Dana Peters; John J Walsh; Fabian Max Laage-Gaupp; Charlie Alexander Hamm; Nina Tritz; Luzie A Doemel; MingDe Lin; Albert Sinusas; Todd Schlachter; James S Duncan; Fahmeed Hyder Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mehdi Damaghi; Narges K Tafreshi; Mark C Lloyd; Robert Sprung; Veronica Estrella; Jonathan W Wojtkowiak; David L Morse; John M Koomen; Marilyn M Bui; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Lynn Jeanette Savic; Luzie A Doemel; Isabel Theresa Schobert; Ruth Rebecca Montgomery; Nikhil Joshi; John James Walsh; Jessica Santana; Vasily Pekurovsky; Xuchen Zhang; MingDe Lin; Lucas Adam; Annemarie Boustani; James Duncan; Lin Leng; Richard John Bucala; S Nahum Goldberg; Fahmeed Hyder; Daniel Coman; Julius Chapiro Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Luzie A Doemel; Jessica G Santana; Lynn J Savic; Fabian M Laage Gaupp; Tabea Borde; Alexandra Petukhova-Greenstein; Ahmet S Kucukkaya; Isabel T Schobert; Charlie A Hamm; Bernhard Gebauer; John J Walsh; Irvin Rexha; Fahmeed Hyder; MingDe Lin; David C Madoff; Todd Schlachter; Julius Chapiro; Daniel Coman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-10-31 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Daniel Coman; Julius Chapiro; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Isabel Theresa Schobert; Dana Peters; John J Walsh; Fabian Max Laage-Gaupp; Charlie Alexander Hamm; Nina Tritz; Luzie A Doemel; MingDe Lin; Albert Sinusas; Todd Schlachter; James S Duncan; Fahmeed Hyder Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Shenqi Zhang; Bin Peng; Zeming Chen; Jiang Yu; Gang Deng; Youmei Bao; Chao Ma; Fengyi Du; Wendy C Sheu; W Taylor Kimberly; J Marc Simard; Daniel Coman; Qianxue Chen; Fahmeed Hyder; Jiangbing Zhou; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Bioact Mater Date: 2022-03-07