Francesca Branzoli1,2, Dinesh K Deelchand3, Roberto Liserre4, Pietro Luigi Poliani5, Lucia Nichelli2,6, Marc Sanson2,7,8, Stéphane Lehéricy1,2,6, Małgorzata Marjańska3. 1. Paris Brain Institute-Institut du Cerveau (ICM), Center for Neuroimaging Research (CENIR), Paris, France. 2. Sorbonne University, UMR S 1127, Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, ICM, Paris, France. 3. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili University Hospital, Brescia, Italy. 5. Pathology Unit, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 6. Department of Neuroradiology, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 7. Department of Neurology 2, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 8. Onconeurotek Tumor Bank, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the PRESS sequence (TE = 97 ms, optimized for 2-hydroxyglutarate detection) to detect cystathionine in gliomas and the effect of the omission of cystathionine on the quantification of the full neurochemical profile. METHODS: Twenty-three subjects with a glioma were retrospectively included based on the availability of both MEGA-PRESS and PRESS acquisitions at 3T, and the presence of the cystathionine signal in the edited MR spectrum. In eight subjects, the PRESS acquisition was performed also in normal tissue. Metabolite quantification was performed using LCModel and simulated basis sets. The LCModel analysis for the PRESS data was performed with and without cystathionine. RESULTS: All subjects with glioma had detectable cystathionine levels >1 mM with Cramér-Rao lower bounds (CRLB) <15%. The mean cystathionine concentrations were 3.49 ± 1.17 mM for MEGA-PRESS and 2.20 ± 0.80 mM for PRESS data. Cystathionine concentrations showed a significant correlation between the two MRS methods (r = 0.58, p = .004), and it was not detectable in normal tissue. Using PRESS, 19 metabolites were quantified with CRLB <50% for more than half of the subjects. The metabolites that were significantly (p < .0028) and mostly affected by the omission of cystathionine were aspartate, betaine, citrate, γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and serine. CONCLUSIONS: Cystathionine was detectable by PRESS in all the selected gliomas, while it was not detectable in normal tissue. The omission from the spectral analysis of cystathionine led to severe biases in the quantification of other neurochemicals that may play key roles in cancer metabolism.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the PRESS sequence (TE = 97 ms, optimized for 2-hydroxyglutarate detection) to detect cystathionine in gliomas and the effect of the omission of cystathionine on the quantification of the full neurochemical profile. METHODS: Twenty-three subjects with a glioma were retrospectively included based on the availability of both MEGA-PRESS and PRESS acquisitions at 3T, and the presence of the cystathionine signal in the edited MR spectrum. In eight subjects, the PRESS acquisition was performed also in normal tissue. Metabolite quantification was performed using LCModel and simulated basis sets. The LCModel analysis for the PRESS data was performed with and without cystathionine. RESULTS: All subjects with glioma had detectable cystathionine levels >1 mM with Cramér-Rao lower bounds (CRLB) <15%. The mean cystathionine concentrations were 3.49 ± 1.17 mM for MEGA-PRESS and 2.20 ± 0.80 mM for PRESS data. Cystathionine concentrations showed a significant correlation between the two MRS methods (r = 0.58, p = .004), and it was not detectable in normal tissue. Using PRESS, 19 metabolites were quantified with CRLB <50% for more than half of the subjects. The metabolites that were significantly (p < .0028) and mostly affected by the omission of cystathionine were aspartate, betaine, citrate, γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and serine. CONCLUSIONS: Cystathionine was detectable by PRESS in all the selected gliomas, while it was not detectable in normal tissue. The omission from the spectral analysis of cystathionine led to severe biases in the quantification of other neurochemicals that may play key roles in cancer metabolism.
Authors: Isaac S Harris; Aislinn E Treloar; Satoshi Inoue; Masato Sasaki; Chiara Gorrini; Kim Chung Lee; Ka Yi Yung; Dirk Brenner; Christiane B Knobbe-Thomsen; Maureen A Cox; Andrew Elia; Thorsten Berger; David W Cescon; Adewunmi Adeoye; Anne Brüstle; Sam D Molyneux; Jacqueline M Mason; Wanda Y Li; Kazuo Yamamoto; Andrew Wakeham; Hal K Berman; Rama Khokha; Susan J Done; Terrance J Kavanagh; Ching-Wan Lam; Tak W Mak Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 31.743
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: Krissie Lenting; Mohammed Khurshed; Tom H Peeters; Corina N A M van den Heuvel; Sanne A M van Lith; Tessa de Bitter; Wiljan Hendriks; Paul N Span; Remco J Molenaar; Dennis Botman; Kiek Verrijp; Arend Heerschap; Mark Ter Laan; Benno Kusters; Anne van Ewijk; Martijn A Huynen; Cornelis J F van Noorden; William P J Leenders Journal: FASEB J Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Changho Choi; Sandeep K Ganji; Ralph J DeBerardinis; Kimmo J Hatanpaa; Dinesh Rakheja; Zoltan Kovacs; Xiao-Li Yang; Tomoyuki Mashimo; Jack M Raisanen; Isaac Marin-Valencia; Juan M Pascual; Christopher J Madden; Bruce E Mickey; Craig R Malloy; Robert M Bachoo; Elizabeth A Maher Journal: Nat Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Zachary J Reitman; Genglin Jin; Edward D Karoly; Ivan Spasojevic; Jian Yang; Kenneth W Kinzler; Yiping He; Darell D Bigner; Bert Vogelstein; Hai Yan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 12.779