PURPOSE: Advanced MRS protocols improve data quality and reproducibility relative to vendor-provided protocols; however, they are challenging to incorporate into the clinical workflow and require local MRS expertise for successful implementation. Here, we developed an automated advanced MRS acquisition protocol at 3T to facilitate acquisition of high-quality spectroscopic data without local MRS expertise. METHODS: First, a B0 shimming protocol was selected for automation by comparing 3 widely used B0 algorithms (2 vendor protocols and FAST(EST)MAP). Next, voxel-based B0 and B1 calibrations were incorporated into the consensus-recommended semi-LASER sequence and combined with an automated VOI prescription tool, a recently developed method for automated voxel prescription. The efficiency of collecting single-voxel data from a clinical cohort (N = 40) with the automated protocol (calibration time and fraction of usable datasets) was compared with the nonautomated semi-LASER protocol (N = 35) whereby all prescan calibrations were executed manually in the academic hospital setting with rotating MR technologists in the neuroradiology unit. RESULTS: A multi-iteration FAST(EST)MAP protocol resulted in narrower water linewidths than vendor's B0 shim protocols for data acquired from 6 brain locations (p < 1e-5) and was selected for automation. The automated B0 and B1 calibrations resulted in a time saving of ~4.5 minutes per voxel relative to the same advanced protocol executed manually. All spectra acquired with the automated protocol were usable, whereas only 86% of those collected with the manual protocol were usable and spectral quality was more variable. CONCLUSION: The plug-and-play advanced MRS protocol allows automated acquisition of high-quality MRS data with high success rate and consistency on a clinical 3T platform.
PURPOSE: Advanced MRS protocols improve data quality and reproducibility relative to vendor-provided protocols; however, they are challenging to incorporate into the clinical workflow and require local MRS expertise for successful implementation. Here, we developed an automated advanced MRS acquisition protocol at 3T to facilitate acquisition of high-quality spectroscopic data without local MRS expertise. METHODS: First, a B0 shimming protocol was selected for automation by comparing 3 widely used B0 algorithms (2 vendor protocols and FAST(EST)MAP). Next, voxel-based B0 and B1 calibrations were incorporated into the consensus-recommended semi-LASER sequence and combined with an automated VOI prescription tool, a recently developed method for automated voxel prescription. The efficiency of collecting single-voxel data from a clinical cohort (N = 40) with the automated protocol (calibration time and fraction of usable datasets) was compared with the nonautomated semi-LASER protocol (N = 35) whereby all prescan calibrations were executed manually in the academic hospital setting with rotating MR technologists in the neuroradiology unit. RESULTS: A multi-iteration FAST(EST)MAP protocol resulted in narrower water linewidths than vendor's B0 shim protocols for data acquired from 6 brain locations (p < 1e-5) and was selected for automation. The automated B0 and B1 calibrations resulted in a time saving of ~4.5 minutes per voxel relative to the same advanced protocol executed manually. All spectra acquired with the automated protocol were usable, whereas only 86% of those collected with the manual protocol were usable and spectral quality was more variable. CONCLUSION: The plug-and-play advanced MRS protocol allows automated acquisition of high-quality MRS data with high success rate and consistency on a clinical 3T platform.
Authors: Young Woo Park; Dinesh K Deelchand; James M Joers; Brian Hanna; Adam Berrington; Joseph S Gillen; Kejal Kantarci; Brian J Soher; Peter B Barker; HyunWook Park; Gülin Öz; Christophe Lenglet Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Gülin Öz; Dinesh K Deelchand; Jannie P Wijnen; Vladimír Mlynárik; Lijing Xin; Ralf Mekle; Ralph Noeske; Tom W J Scheenen; Ivan Tkáč Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Martin Wilson; Ovidiu Andronesi; Peter B Barker; Robert Bartha; Alberto Bizzi; Patrick J Bolan; Kevin M Brindle; In-Young Choi; Cristina Cudalbu; Ulrike Dydak; Uzay E Emir; Ramon G Gonzalez; Stephan Gruber; Rolf Gruetter; Rakesh K Gupta; Arend Heerschap; Anke Henning; Hoby P Hetherington; Petra S Huppi; Ralph E Hurd; Kejal Kantarci; Risto A Kauppinen; Dennis W J Klomp; Roland Kreis; Marijn J Kruiskamp; Martin O Leach; Alexander P Lin; Peter R Luijten; Małgorzata Marjańska; Andrew A Maudsley; Dieter J Meyerhoff; Carolyn E Mountford; Paul G Mullins; James B Murdoch; Sarah J Nelson; Ralph Noeske; Gülin Öz; Julie W Pan; Andrew C Peet; Harish Poptani; Stefan Posse; Eva-Maria Ratai; Nouha Salibi; Tom W J Scheenen; Ian C P Smith; Brian J Soher; Ivan Tkáč; Daniel B Vigneron; Franklyn A Howe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Dinesh K Deelchand; Isaac M Adanyeguh; Uzay E Emir; Tra-My Nguyen; Romain Valabregue; Pierre-Gilles Henry; Fanny Mochel; Gülin Öz Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Melissa Terpstra; Ian Cheong; Tianmeng Lyu; Dinesh K Deelchand; Uzay E Emir; Petr Bednařík; Lynn E Eberly; Gülin Öz Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Rosebud O Roberts; Yonas E Geda; David S Knopman; Ruth H Cha; V Shane Pankratz; Bradley F Boeve; Robert J Ivnik; Eric G Tangalos; Ronald C Petersen; Walter A Rocca Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Christoph Juchem; Cristina Cudalbu; Robin A de Graaf; Rolf Gruetter; Anke Henning; Hoby P Hetherington; Vincent O Boer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Jan Valošek; Petr Bednařík; Miloš Keřkovský; Petr Hluštík; Josef Bednařík; Alena Svatkova Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.964