Bijaya Thapa1,2, Azma Mareyam1, Jason Stockmann1,2, Bernhard Strasser1,2, Boris Keil3, Philipp Hoecht4, Stefan A Carp1,2, Xianqi Li1,2, Zhe Wang5, Yulin V Chang5, Jorg Dietrich2,6, Erik Uhlmann2,7, Daniel P Cahill2,8, Tracy Batchelor2,9,10, Lawrence Wald1,2, Ovidiu C Andronesi1,2. 1. A. A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, TH-Mittelhessen University of Applied Sciences (THM), Giessen, Germany. 4. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Department of Neurology, Brigham's and Women Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Absolute quantification of metabolites in MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) requires a stable reference signal of known concentration. The Electronic REference To access In vivo Concentrations (ERETIC) has shown great promise but has not been applied in patients and 3D MRSI. ERETIC hardware has not been integrated with receive arrays due to technical challenges, such as coil combination and unwanted coupling between multiple ERETIC and receive channels, for which we developed mitigation strategies. PURPOSE: To develop absolute quantification for whole-brain MRSI in glioma patients. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Five healthy volunteers and three patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase mutant glioma (27% female). Calibration and coil loading phantoms. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3 T; Adiabatic spin-echo spiral 3D MRSI with real-time motion correction, Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR), Gradient Recalled Echo (GRE), Multi-echo Magnetization Prepared Rapid Acquisition of Gradient Echo (MEMPRAGE). ASSESSMENT: Absolute quantification was performed for five brain metabolites (total N-acetyl-aspartate [NAA]/creatine/choline, glutamine + glutamate, myo-inositol) and the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate using a custom-built 4x-ERETIC/8x-receive array coil. Metabolite quantification was performed with both EREIC and internal water reference methods. ERETIC signal was transmitted via optical link and used to correct coil loading. Inductive and radiative coupling between ERETIC and receive channels were measured. STATISTICAL TESTS: ERETIC and internal water methods for metabolite quantification were compared using Bland-Altman (BA) analysis and the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: ERETIC could be integrated in receive arrays and inductive coupling dominated (5-886 times) radiative coupling. Phantoms show proportional scaling of the ERETIC signal with coil loading. The BA analysis demonstrated very good agreement (3.3% ± 1.6%) in healthy volunteers, while there was a large difference (36.1% ± 3.8%) in glioma tumors between metabolite concentrations by ERETIC and internal water quantification. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that ERETIC integrated with receive arrays and whole-brain MRSI is feasible for brain metabolites quantification. Further validation is required to probe that ERETIC provides more accurate metabolite concentration in glioma patients. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
BACKGROUND: Absolute quantification of metabolites in MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) requires a stable reference signal of known concentration. The Electronic REference To access In vivo Concentrations (ERETIC) has shown great promise but has not been applied in patients and 3D MRSI. ERETIC hardware has not been integrated with receive arrays due to technical challenges, such as coil combination and unwanted coupling between multiple ERETIC and receive channels, for which we developed mitigation strategies. PURPOSE: To develop absolute quantification for whole-brain MRSI in glioma patients. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Five healthy volunteers and three patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase mutant glioma (27% female). Calibration and coil loading phantoms. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3 T; Adiabatic spin-echo spiral 3D MRSI with real-time motion correction, Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR), Gradient Recalled Echo (GRE), Multi-echo Magnetization Prepared Rapid Acquisition of Gradient Echo (MEMPRAGE). ASSESSMENT: Absolute quantification was performed for five brain metabolites (total N-acetyl-aspartate [NAA]/creatine/choline, glutamine + glutamate, myo-inositol) and the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate using a custom-built 4x-ERETIC/8x-receive array coil. Metabolite quantification was performed with both EREIC and internal water reference methods. ERETIC signal was transmitted via optical link and used to correct coil loading. Inductive and radiative coupling between ERETIC and receive channels were measured. STATISTICAL TESTS: ERETIC and internal water methods for metabolite quantification were compared using Bland-Altman (BA) analysis and the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: ERETIC could be integrated in receive arrays and inductive coupling dominated (5-886 times) radiative coupling. Phantoms show proportional scaling of the ERETIC signal with coil loading. The BA analysis demonstrated very good agreement (3.3% ± 1.6%) in healthy volunteers, while there was a large difference (36.1% ± 3.8%) in glioma tumors between metabolite concentrations by ERETIC and internal water quantification. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that ERETIC integrated with receive arrays and whole-brain MRSI is feasible for brain metabolites quantification. Further validation is required to probe that ERETIC provides more accurate metabolite concentration in glioma patients. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Lenny Dang; David W White; Stefan Gross; Bryson D Bennett; Mark A Bittinger; Edward M Driggers; Valeria R Fantin; Hyun Gyung Jang; Shengfang Jin; Marie C Keenan; Kevin M Marks; Robert M Prins; Patrick S Ward; Katharine E Yen; Linda M Liau; Joshua D Rabinowitz; Lewis C Cantley; Craig B Thompson; Matthew G Vander Heiden; Shinsan M Su Journal: Nature Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: D Williams Parsons; Siân Jones; Xiaosong Zhang; Jimmy Cheng-Ho Lin; Rebecca J Leary; Philipp Angenendt; Parminder Mankoo; Hannah Carter; I-Mei Siu; Gary L Gallia; Alessandro Olivi; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Stephen Keir; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Yuri Nikolsky; Dana A Busam; Hanna Tekleab; Luis A Diaz; James Hartigan; Doug R Smith; Robert L Strausberg; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; Sueli Mieko Oba Shinjo; Hai Yan; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Rachel Karchin; Nick Papadopoulos; Giovanni Parmigiani; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler Journal: Science Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Aaron T Hess; Borjan Gagoski; M Dylan Tisdall; Andre J W van der Kouwe; Siegfried Trattnig; Bruce Rosen; Ovidiu C Andronesi Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ovidiu C Andronesi; Isabel C Arrillaga-Romany; K Ina Ly; Wolfgang Bogner; Eva M Ratai; Kara Reitz; A John Iafrate; Jorg Dietrich; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Andrew S Chi; Bruce R Rosen; Patrick Y Wen; Daniel P Cahill; Tracy T Batchelor Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 14.919