Paul S Jacobs1, Blake Benyard1, Abigail Cember1, Ravi Prakash Reddy Nanga1, Quy Cao2, M Dylan Tisdall3, Neil Wilson1, Sandhitsu Das4, Kathryn A Davis4, John Detre1,4, David Roalf5, Ravinder Reddy1. 1. Center for Advanced Metabolic Imaging in Precision Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Penn Statistics in Imaging and Visualization Center, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ultra-high field MR imaging lacks B1 + inhomogeneity due to shorter RF wavelengths used at higher field strengths compared to human anatomy. CEST techniques tend to be highly susceptible to B1 + inhomogeneities due to a high and uniform B1 + field being necessary to create the endogenous contrast. High-permittivity dielectric pads have seen increasing usage in MR imaging due to their ability to tailor the spatial distribution of the B1 + field produced. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that dielectric materials can be used to improve glutamate weighted CEST (gluCEST) at 7T. THEORY AND METHODS: GluCEST images were acquired on a 7T system on six healthy volunteers. Aqueous calcium titanate pads, with a permittivity of approximately 110, were placed on either side in the subject's head near the temporal lobes. A post-processing correction algorithm was implemented in combination with dielectric padding to compare contrast improvement. Tissue segmentation was performed to assess the effect of dielectric pads on gray and white matter separately. RESULTS: GluCEST images demonstrated contrast enhancement in the lateral temporal lobe regions with dielectric pad placement. Tissue segmentation analysis showed an increase in correction effectiveness within the gray matter tissue compared to white matter tissue. Statistical testing suggested a significant difference in gluCEST contrast when pads were used and showed a difference in the gray matter tissue segment. CONCLUSION: The use of dielectric pads improved the B1 + field homogeneity and enhanced gluCEST contrast for all subjects when compared to data that did not incorporate padding.
PURPOSE: Ultra-high field MR imaging lacks B1 + inhomogeneity due to shorter RF wavelengths used at higher field strengths compared to human anatomy. CEST techniques tend to be highly susceptible to B1 + inhomogeneities due to a high and uniform B1 + field being necessary to create the endogenous contrast. High-permittivity dielectric pads have seen increasing usage in MR imaging due to their ability to tailor the spatial distribution of the B1 + field produced. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that dielectric materials can be used to improve glutamate weighted CEST (gluCEST) at 7T. THEORY AND METHODS: GluCEST images were acquired on a 7T system on six healthy volunteers. Aqueous calcium titanate pads, with a permittivity of approximately 110, were placed on either side in the subject's head near the temporal lobes. A post-processing correction algorithm was implemented in combination with dielectric padding to compare contrast improvement. Tissue segmentation was performed to assess the effect of dielectric pads on gray and white matter separately. RESULTS: GluCEST images demonstrated contrast enhancement in the lateral temporal lobe regions with dielectric pad placement. Tissue segmentation analysis showed an increase in correction effectiveness within the gray matter tissue compared to white matter tissue. Statistical testing suggested a significant difference in gluCEST contrast when pads were used and showed a difference in the gray matter tissue segment. CONCLUSION: The use of dielectric pads improved the B1 + field homogeneity and enhanced gluCEST contrast for all subjects when compared to data that did not incorporate padding.
Authors: Andrzej Liebert; Moritz Zaiss; Rene Gumbrecht; Katharina Tkotz; Peter Linz; Benjamin Schmitt; Frederik B Laun; Arnd Doerfler; Michael Uder; Armin M Nagel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mark E Ladd; Peter Bachert; Martin Meyerspeer; Ewald Moser; Armin M Nagel; David G Norris; Sebastian Schmitter; Oliver Speck; Sina Straub; Moritz Zaiss Journal: Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 9.795
Authors: Marc D Lindley; Daniel Kim; Glen Morrell; Marta E Heilbrun; Pippa Storey; Christopher J Hanrahan; Vivian S Lee Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Christopher T Sica; Sebastian Rupprecht; Ryan J Hou; Matthew T Lanagan; Navid P Gandji; Michael T Lanagan; Qing X Yang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ravi Prakash Reddy Nanga; Catherine DeBrosse; Dushyant Kumar; David Roalf; Brendan McGeehan; Kevin D'Aquilla; Arijitt Borthakur; Hari Hariharan; Damodara Reddy; Mark Elliott; John A Detre; Cynthia Neill Epperson; Ravinder Reddy Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 4.668