Kai Herz1,2, Sebastian Mueller1,2, Or Perlman3, Maxim Zaitsev4, Linda Knutsson5,6, Phillip Zhe Sun7, Jinyuan Zhou6, Peter van Zijl6,8, Kerstin Heinecke9, Patrick Schuenke9, Christian T Farrar3, Manuel Schmidt10, Arnd Dörfler10, Klaus Scheffler1,2, Moritz Zaiss1,10. 1. Magnetic Resonance Center, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen, Germany. 2. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. 3. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA. 4. High Field MR Center, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 6. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Yerkes Imaging Center, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 8. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 9. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig and Berlin, Germany. 10. Department of Neuroradiology, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As the field of CEST grows, various novel preparation periods using different parameters are being introduced. At the same time, large, multisite clinical studies require clearly defined protocols, especially across different vendors. Here, we propose a CEST definition standard using the open Pulseq format for a shareable, simple, and exact definition of CEST protocols. METHODS: We present the benefits of such a standard in three ways: (1) an open database on GitHub, where fully defined, human-readable CEST protocols can be shared; (2) an open-source Bloch-McConnell simulation to test and optimize CEST preparation periods in silico; and (3) a hybrid MR sequence that plays out the CEST preparation period and can be combined with any existing readout module. RESULTS: The exact definition of the CEST preparation period, in combination with the flexible simulation, leads to a good match between simulations and measurements. The standard allowed finding consensus on three amide proton transfer-weighted protocols that could be compared in healthy subjects and a tumor patient. In addition, we could show coherent multisite results for a sophisticated CEST method, highlighting the benefits regarding protocol sharing and reproducibility. CONCLUSION: With Pulseq-CEST, we provide a straightforward approach to standardize, share, simulate, and measure different CEST preparation schemes, which are inherently completely defined.
PURPOSE: As the field of CEST grows, various novel preparation periods using different parameters are being introduced. At the same time, large, multisite clinical studies require clearly defined protocols, especially across different vendors. Here, we propose a CEST definition standard using the open Pulseq format for a shareable, simple, and exact definition of CEST protocols. METHODS: We present the benefits of such a standard in three ways: (1) an open database on GitHub, where fully defined, human-readable CEST protocols can be shared; (2) an open-source Bloch-McConnell simulation to test and optimize CEST preparation periods in silico; and (3) a hybrid MR sequence that plays out the CEST preparation period and can be combined with any existing readout module. RESULTS: The exact definition of the CEST preparation period, in combination with the flexible simulation, leads to a good match between simulations and measurements. The standard allowed finding consensus on three amide proton transfer-weighted protocols that could be compared in healthy subjects and a tumor patient. In addition, we could show coherent multisite results for a sophisticated CEST method, highlighting the benefits regarding protocol sharing and reproducibility. CONCLUSION: With Pulseq-CEST, we provide a straightforward approach to standardize, share, simulate, and measure different CEST preparation schemes, which are inherently completely defined.
Authors: Kai Herz; Tobias Lindig; Anagha Deshmane; Jens Schittenhelm; Marco Skardelly; Benjamin Bender; Ulrike Ernemann; Klaus Scheffler; Moritz Zaiss Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-06-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Moritz Zaiss; Anagha Deshmane; Mark Schuppert; Kai Herz; Felix Glang; Philipp Ehses; Tobias Lindig; Benjamin Bender; Ulrike Ernemann; Klaus Scheffler Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kai Herz; Chirayu Gandhi; Mark Schuppert; Anagha Deshmane; Klaus Scheffler; Moritz Zaiss Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kannie W Y Chan; Michael T McMahon; Yoshinori Kato; Guanshu Liu; Jeff W M Bulte; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Dmitri Artemov; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Hye-Young Heo; Linda Knutsson; Peter C M van Zijl; Shanshan Jiang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Julia P Lingl; Arthur Wunderlich; Steffen Goerke; Daniel Paech; Mark E Ladd; Patrick Liebig; Andrej Pala; Soung Yung Kim; Michael Braun; Bernd L Schmitz; Meinrad Beer; Johannes Rosskopf Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-14
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Evita C Wiegers; Esther A H Warnert; Kathleen M Schmainda; Frank Riemer; Ruben E Nechifor; Vera C Keil; Gilbert Hangel; Patrícia Figueiredo; Maria Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Otto M Henriksen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Moritz Zaiss; Linda Knutsson; Phillip Zhe Sun; Sung Soo Ahn; Silvio Aime; Peter Bachert; Jaishri O Blakeley; Kejia Cai; Michael A Chappell; Min Chen; Daniel F Gochberg; Steffen Goerke; Hye-Young Heo; Shanshan Jiang; Tao Jin; Seong-Gi Kim; John Laterra; Daniel Paech; Mark D Pagel; Ji Eun Park; Ravinder Reddy; Akihiko Sakata; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; A Dean Sherry; Seth A Smith; Greg J Stanisz; Pia C Sundgren; Osamu Togao; Moriel Vandsburger; Zhibo Wen; Yin Wu; Yi Zhang; Wenzhen Zhu; Zhongliang Zu; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.737