Tao Jin1, Julius Juhyun Chung1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Endogenous CEST signal usually has low specificity due to contamination from the magnetization transfer effect and from fast exchanging labile protons with close Larmor frequencies. We propose to improve CEST signal specificity with an average saturation efficiency filter (ASEF). METHODS: ASEF measures the difference between CEST signals acquired with similar average irradiation power but largely different duty cycles (DC), for example, a continuous wave or a high DC pulse train versus a low DC one. Simulation and Cr phantom studies were performed to evaluate the characteristics of ASEF for CEST. RESULTS: Theoretical and simulation studies show that ASEF can suppress fast exchanging processes, with only a small loss of chemical exchange contrast for slow-to-intermediate exchange rates if the difference in DC is large. In the RF offset range of 2 to 5 ppm with an averaged saturation power of 0.8 and 1.6 microteslas, there is a mismatch of ∼0.1% to 2% in the magnetization transfer signal between saturation by continuous wave and a pulse train with DC = 15% and pulse duration of 24 ms, respectively. This mismatch can be minimized by careful selection of saturation power, pulse duration, and DC differences or by applying a small fudge factor between the 2 irradiation powers. Phantom studies of Cr confirmed that ASEF can minimize the magnetization transfer effect and reduce sensitivity to fast exchange processes. CONCLUSION: ASEF can improve the specificity of slow-to-intermediate exchanging CEST signal with a relatively small loss of sensitivity.
PURPOSE: Endogenous CEST signal usually has low specificity due to contamination from the magnetization transfer effect and from fast exchanging labile protons with close Larmor frequencies. We propose to improve CEST signal specificity with an average saturation efficiency filter (ASEF). METHODS: ASEF measures the difference between CEST signals acquired with similar average irradiation power but largely different duty cycles (DC), for example, a continuous wave or a high DC pulse train versus a low DC one. Simulation and Cr phantom studies were performed to evaluate the characteristics of ASEF for CEST. RESULTS: Theoretical and simulation studies show that ASEF can suppress fast exchanging processes, with only a small loss of chemical exchange contrast for slow-to-intermediate exchange rates if the difference in DC is large. In the RF offset range of 2 to 5 ppm with an averaged saturation power of 0.8 and 1.6 microteslas, there is a mismatch of ∼0.1% to 2% in the magnetization transfer signal between saturation by continuous wave and a pulse train with DC = 15% and pulse duration of 24 ms, respectively. This mismatch can be minimized by careful selection of saturation power, pulse duration, and DC differences or by applying a small fudge factor between the 2 irradiation powers. Phantom studies of Cr confirmed that ASEF can minimize the magnetization transfer effect and reduce sensitivity to fast exchange processes. CONCLUSION: ASEF can improve the specificity of slow-to-intermediate exchanging CEST signal with a relatively small loss of sensitivity.
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Jean-Francois Payen; David A Wilson; Richard J Traystman; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Nat Med Date: 2003-07-20 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Tao Jin; Bistra Iordanova; T Kevin Hitchens; Michel Modo; Ping Wang; Hunter Mehrens; Seong-Gi Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Jaishri O Blakeley; Jun Hua; Mina Kim; John Laterra; Martin G Pomper; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Elena Vinogradov; Huamei He; Angelo Lubag; James A Balschi; A Dean Sherry; Robert E Lenkinski Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiang Xu; Nirbhay N Yadav; Haifeng Zeng; Craig K Jones; Jinyuan Zhou; Peter C M van Zijl; Jiadi Xu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Zhongliang Zu; Eugene C Lin; Elizabeth A Louie; Xiaoyu Jiang; Christopher L Lankford; Bruce Damon; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 4.044