Steve C N Hui1,2, Helge J Zöllner1,2, Georg Oeltzschner1,2, Richard A E Edden1,2, Muhammad G Saleh3. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. F. M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate J-difference editing of phosphorylethanolamine (PE) with chemical shifts at 3.22 (PE3.22 ) and 3.98 (PE3.98 ) ppm, and compare the merits of two editing strategies. METHODS: Density-matrix simulations of MEGA-PRESS (Mescher-Garwood PRESS) for PE were performed at TEs ranging from 80 to 200 ms in steps of 2 ms, applying 20-ms editing pulses (ON/OFF) at (1) 3.98/7.5 ppm to detect PE3.22 and (2) 3.22/7.5 ppm to detect PE3.98 . Phantom experiments were performed using a PE phantom to validate simulation results. Ten subjects were scanned using a Philips 3T MRI scanner at TEs of 90 ms and 110 ms to edit PE3.22 and PE3.98 . Osprey was used for data processing, modeling, and quantification. RESULTS: Simulations show substantial TE modulation of the intensity and shape of the edited signals due to coupling evolution. Simulated and phantom integrals suggest that TEs of 110 ms and 90 ms were optimal for the edited detection of PE3.22 and PE3.98 , respectively. Phantom results indicated strong agreement with the simulated spectra and integrals. In vivo quantification of the PE3.22 /total creatine and PE3.98 /total creatine concentration ratio yielded values of 0.26 ± 0.04 (between-subject coefficient of variation [CV]: 15.4%) and 0.18 ± 0.04 (CV: 22.8%), respectively, at TE = 90 ms, and 0.24 ± 0.02 (CV: 8.2%) and 0.23 ± 0.04 (CV: 18.0%), respectively, at TE = 110 ms. CONCLUSION: Simulations and in vivo MEGA-PRESS of PE demonstrate that both PE3.22 and PE3.98 are potential candidates for editing, but PE3.22 at TE = 110 ms yields lower variation across TEs.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate J-difference editing of phosphorylethanolamine (PE) with chemical shifts at 3.22 (PE3.22 ) and 3.98 (PE3.98 ) ppm, and compare the merits of two editing strategies. METHODS: Density-matrix simulations of MEGA-PRESS (Mescher-Garwood PRESS) for PE were performed at TEs ranging from 80 to 200 ms in steps of 2 ms, applying 20-ms editing pulses (ON/OFF) at (1) 3.98/7.5 ppm to detect PE3.22 and (2) 3.22/7.5 ppm to detect PE3.98 . Phantom experiments were performed using a PE phantom to validate simulation results. Ten subjects were scanned using a Philips 3T MRI scanner at TEs of 90 ms and 110 ms to edit PE3.22 and PE3.98 . Osprey was used for data processing, modeling, and quantification. RESULTS: Simulations show substantial TE modulation of the intensity and shape of the edited signals due to coupling evolution. Simulated and phantom integrals suggest that TEs of 110 ms and 90 ms were optimal for the edited detection of PE3.22 and PE3.98 , respectively. Phantom results indicated strong agreement with the simulated spectra and integrals. In vivo quantification of the PE3.22 /total creatine and PE3.98 /total creatine concentration ratio yielded values of 0.26 ± 0.04 (between-subject coefficient of variation [CV]: 15.4%) and 0.18 ± 0.04 (CV: 22.8%), respectively, at TE = 90 ms, and 0.24 ± 0.02 (CV: 8.2%) and 0.23 ± 0.04 (CV: 18.0%), respectively, at TE = 110 ms. CONCLUSION: Simulations and in vivo MEGA-PRESS of PE demonstrate that both PE3.22 and PE3.98 are potential candidates for editing, but PE3.22 at TE = 110 ms yields lower variation across TEs.
Authors: Małgorzata Marjańska; J Riley McCarten; James Hodges; Laura S Hemmy; Andrea Grant; Dinesh K Deelchand; Melissa Terpstra Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Muhammad G Saleh; Daniel Rimbault; Mark Mikkelsen; Georg Oeltzschner; Anna M Wang; Dengrong Jiang; Ali Alhamud; Jamie Near; Michael Schär; Ralph Noeske; James B Murdoch; Lars Ersland; Alexander R Craven; Gerard Eric Dwyer; Eli Renate Grüner; Li Pan; Sinyeob Ahn; Richard A E Edden Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Yulu Song; Helge J Zöllner; Steve C N Hui; Kathleen Hupfeld; Georg Oeltzschner; James J Prisciandaro; Richard Edden Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 5.435