Xiang Xu1,2, Akansha Ashvani Sehgal1,2, Nirbhay N Yadav1,2, John Laterra3, Lindsay Blair3, Jaishri Blakeley3, Anina Seidemo4, Jennifer M Coughlin5, Martin G Pomper1, Linda Knutsson1,4, Peter C M van Zijl1,2. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dynamic glucose enhanced (DGE) MRI has shown potential for imaging glucose delivery and blood-brain barrier permeability at fields of 7T and higher. Here, we evaluated issues involved with translating d-glucose weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer (glucoCEST) experiments to the clinical field strength of 3T. METHODS: Exchange rates of the different hydroxyl proton pools and the field-dependent T2 relaxivity of water in d-glucose solution were used to simulate the water saturation spectra (Z-spectra) and DGE signal differences as a function of static field strength B0 , radiofrequency field strength B1 , and saturation time tsat . Multislice DGE experiments were performed at 3T on 5 healthy volunteers and 3 glioma patients. RESULTS: Simulations showed that DGE signal decreases with B0 , because of decreased contributions of glucoCEST and transverse relaxivity, as well as coalescence of the hydroxyl and water proton signals in the Z-spectrum. At 3T, because of this coalescence and increased interference of direct water saturation and magnetization transfer contrast, the DGE effect can be assessed over a broad range of saturation frequencies. Multislice DGE experiments were performed in vivo using a B1 of 1.6 µT and a tsat of 1 second, leading to a small glucoCEST DGE effect at an offset frequency of 2 ppm from the water resonance. Motion correction was essential to detect DGE effects reliably. CONCLUSION: Multislice glucoCEST-based DGE experiments can be performed at 3T with sufficient temporal resolution. However, the effects are small and prone to motion influence. Therefore, motion correction should be used when performing DGE experiments at clinical field strengths.
PURPOSE: Dynamic glucose enhanced (DGE) MRI has shown potential for imaging glucose delivery and blood-brain barrier permeability at fields of 7T and higher. Here, we evaluated issues involved with translating d-glucose weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer (glucoCEST) experiments to the clinical field strength of 3T. METHODS: Exchange rates of the different hydroxyl proton pools and the field-dependent T2 relaxivity of water in d-glucose solution were used to simulate the water saturation spectra (Z-spectra) and DGE signal differences as a function of static field strength B0 , radiofrequency field strength B1 , and saturation time tsat . Multislice DGE experiments were performed at 3T on 5 healthy volunteers and 3 gliomapatients. RESULTS: Simulations showed that DGE signal decreases with B0 , because of decreased contributions of glucoCEST and transverse relaxivity, as well as coalescence of the hydroxyl and water proton signals in the Z-spectrum. At 3T, because of this coalescence and increased interference of direct water saturation and magnetization transfer contrast, the DGE effect can be assessed over a broad range of saturation frequencies. Multislice DGE experiments were performed in vivo using a B1 of 1.6 µT and a tsat of 1 second, leading to a small glucoCEST DGE effect at an offset frequency of 2 ppm from the water resonance. Motion correction was essential to detect DGE effects reliably. CONCLUSION: Multislice glucoCEST-based DGE experiments can be performed at 3T with sufficient temporal resolution. However, the effects are small and prone to motion influence. Therefore, motion correction should be used when performing DGE experiments at clinical field strengths.
Authors: Xiang Xu; Jiadi Xu; Kannie W Y Chan; Jing Liu; Huanling Liu; Yuguo Li; Lin Chen; Guanshu Liu; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-07-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Patrick Schuenke; Christina Koehler; Andreas Korzowski; Johannes Windschuh; Peter Bachert; Mark E Ladd; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Daniel Paech; Sebastian Bickelhaupt; David Bonekamp; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Alexander Radbruch; Moritz Zaiss Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-08-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Nirbhay N Yadav; Jiadi Xu; Amnon Bar-Shir; Qin Qin; Kannie W Y Chan; Ksenija Grgac; Wenbo Li; Michael T McMahon; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kim C C van de Ven; Marinette van der Graaf; Cees J Tack; Arend Heerschap; Bastiaan E de Galan Journal: Diabetes Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Patrick Schuenke; Daniel Paech; Christina Koehler; Johannes Windschuh; Peter Bachert; Mark E Ladd; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Alexander Radbruch; Moritz Zaiss Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 4.379
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: Benjamin Bender; Kai Herz; Anagha Deshmane; Vivien Richter; Ghazaleh Tabatabai; Jens Schittenhelm; Marco Skardelly; Klaus Scheffler; Ulrike Ernemann; Mina Kim; Xavier Golay; Moritz Zaiss; Tobias Lindig Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Mina Kim; Afroditi Eleftheriou; Luca Ravotto; Bruno Weber; Michal Rivlin; Gil Navon; Martina Capozza; Annasofia Anemone; Dario Livio Longo; Silvio Aime; Moritz Zaiss; Kai Herz; Anagha Deshmane; Tobias Lindig; Benjamin Bender; Xavier Golay Journal: MAGMA Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 2.310