PURPOSE: To characterize near-resonance saturation pulse MR imaging on a 1.5-T scanner in order to gain insight into underlying mechanisms that alter tissue contrast and to optimize the technique for neuroimaging. METHODS: Off-resonance saturation pulses were applied to T1-weighted, spin-density-weighted, and T2-weighted sequences at frequency offsets ranging from 50 Hz to 20,000 Hz down field from water resonance. Suppression ratios were determined at each offset for phantom materials (MnCl2 solution, gadopentetate dimeglumine, corn oil, water, and agar), normal brain structures, and a variety of brain lesions. RESULTS: Signal suppression of MnCl2 on T1-weighted images occurred at offsets of less than 2000 Hz even though no macromolecules were present in the solution. Only those phantom materials and tissues with short or intermediate T1 relaxation times and relatively large T1/T2 ratios were sensitive to changing frequency offsets. Suppression of brain increased from approximately 20% at 2000 Hz offset to approximately 45% when the offset was reduced to 300 Hz. In human subjects, the net effect of reducing the frequency offset was to increase T2 contrast on T1-weighted, spin-density-weighted, and T2-weighted images. Distilled water and contrast material did not suppress except at very low offsets ( < 300 Hz). A frequency offset of 300 Hz was optimal for maximizing conspicuity between most contrast-enhancing lesions and adjacent brain while preserving anatomic detail. CONCLUSION: Suppression of MnCl2 indicates that magnetization transfer is not the sole mechanism of contrast in near-resonance saturation MR imaging. Spin-lock excitation can reasonably explain the behavior of the phantom solutions and the increase in T2 contrast of tissues achieved as the frequency offset is decreased from 2000 Hz to 300 Hz. Below 300 Hz, saturation is presumably caused by spin-tip effects. With our pulse design, an offset of 300 Hz is optimal for many routine clinical imaging examinations.
PURPOSE: To characterize near-resonance saturation pulse MR imaging on a 1.5-T scanner in order to gain insight into underlying mechanisms that alter tissue contrast and to optimize the technique for neuroimaging. METHODS: Off-resonance saturation pulses were applied to T1-weighted, spin-density-weighted, and T2-weighted sequences at frequency offsets ranging from 50 Hz to 20,000 Hz down field from water resonance. Suppression ratios were determined at each offset for phantom materials (MnCl2 solution, gadopentetate dimeglumine, corn oil, water, and agar), normal brain structures, and a variety of brain lesions. RESULTS: Signal suppression of MnCl2 on T1-weighted images occurred at offsets of less than 2000 Hz even though no macromolecules were present in the solution. Only those phantom materials and tissues with short or intermediate T1 relaxation times and relatively large T1/T2 ratios were sensitive to changing frequency offsets. Suppression of brain increased from approximately 20% at 2000 Hz offset to approximately 45% when the offset was reduced to 300 Hz. In human subjects, the net effect of reducing the frequency offset was to increase T2 contrast on T1-weighted, spin-density-weighted, and T2-weighted images. Distilled water and contrast material did not suppress except at very low offsets ( < 300 Hz). A frequency offset of 300 Hz was optimal for maximizing conspicuity between most contrast-enhancing lesions and adjacent brain while preserving anatomic detail. CONCLUSION: Suppression of MnCl2 indicates that magnetization transfer is not the sole mechanism of contrast in near-resonance saturation MR imaging. Spin-lock excitation can reasonably explain the behavior of the phantom solutions and the increase in T2 contrast of tissues achieved as the frequency offset is decreased from 2000 Hz to 300 Hz. Below 300 Hz, saturation is presumably caused by spin-tip effects. With our pulse design, an offset of 300 Hz is optimal for many routine clinical imaging examinations.
Authors: Jens H Jensen; Haiying Tang; Christina L Tosti; Srirama V Swaminathan; Alvaro Nunez; Kristi Hultman; Kamila U Szulc; Ed X Wu; Daniel Kim; Sujit Sheth; Truman R Brown; Gary M Brittenham Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tsang-Wei Tu; Rashida A Williams; Jacob D Lescher; Neekita Jikaria; L Christine Turtzo; Joseph A Frank Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Mustapha Bouhrara; David A Reiter; Hasan Celik; Kenneth W Fishbein; Richard Kijowski; Richard G Spencer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Walter R T Witschey; Ari Borthakur; Mark A Elliott; Jeremy Magland; Erin L McArdle; Andrew Wheaton; Ravinder Reddy Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christina L Sammet; Srirama V Swaminathan; Haiying Tang; Sujit Sheth; Jens H Jensen; Alvaro Nunez; Kristi Hultman; Daniel Kim; Ed X Wu; Gary M Brittenham; Truman R Brown Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Haiying Tang; Jens H Jensen; Christina L Sammet; Sujit Sheth; Srirama V Swaminathan; Kristi Hultman; Daniel Kim; Ed X Wu; Truman R Brown; Gary M Brittenham Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mustapha Bouhrara; David A Reiter; Michael C Maring; Jean-Marie Bonny; Richard G Spencer Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 2.486