Repeatability of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brain at 7 T: effect of scan time on semi-localized by adiabatic selective refocusing and short-echo time stimulated echo acquisition mode scans and their comparison.
7 Tesla (7 T)
Cramér-Rao lower bound
Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS)
repeatability
semi-localized by adiabatic selective refocusing (sLASER)
short echo time (TE) stimulated echo acquisition mode (sSTEAM)
Journal
Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
entrez:
4
1
2021
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides a unique opportunity for Sixteen healthy subjects were prospectively enrolled and scanned twice with an off-bed interval between scans. The scan parameters for sLASER were a TR/TE of 6.5 s/32 ms and 32 and 48 averages (sLASER×32 and sLASER×48, respectively). The scan parameters for sSTEAM were a TR/TE of 4 s/5 ms and 32, 48, and 64 averages (sSTEAM4×32, sSTEAM4×48, and sSTEAM4×64, respectively) in addition to that with a TR/TE of 8 s/5 ms and 32 averages (sSTEAM8×32). Data were analyzed using LCModel. Metabolites quantified with Cramér-Rao lower bounds (CRLBs) >50% were classified as not detected, and metabolites quantified with mean or median CRLBs ≤20% were included for further analysis. The SNR, CRLBs, coefficient of variation (CV), and metabolite concentrations were statistically compared using the Shapiro-Wilk test, one-way ANOVA, or the Friedman test. The sLASER spectra for N-acetylaspartate + N-acetylaspartylglutamate (tNAA) and glutamate (Glu) had a comparable or higher SNR than sSTEAM spectra. Ten metabolites had lower CRLBs than prefixed thresholds: aspartate (Asp), γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), glutamine (Gln), Glu, glutathione (GSH), myo-inositol (Ins), taurine (Tau), the total amount of phosphocholine + glycerophosphocholine (tCho), creatine + phosphocreatine (tCr), and tNAA. Performance of the two sequences was satisfactory except for GABA, for which sLASER yielded higher CRLBs (≥18%) than sSTEAM. Some significant differences in CRLBs were noted, but they were ≤2% except for GABA and Gln. Signal averaging significantly lowered CRLBs for some metabolites but only by a small amount. Measurement repeatability as indicated by median CVs was ≤10% for Gln, Glu, Ins, tCho, tCr, and tNAA in all scans, and that for Asp, GABA, GSH, and Tau was ≥10% under some scanning conditions. The CV for GABA according to sLASER was significantly higher than that according to sSTEAM, whereas the CV for Ins was higher according to sSTEAM. An increase in signal averaging contribute little to lower CVs except for Ins. Both sequences quantified brain metabolites with a high degree of precision and repeatability. They are comparable except for GABA, for which sSTEAM would be a better choice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides a unique opportunity for
METHODS
METHODS
Sixteen healthy subjects were prospectively enrolled and scanned twice with an off-bed interval between scans. The scan parameters for sLASER were a TR/TE of 6.5 s/32 ms and 32 and 48 averages (sLASER×32 and sLASER×48, respectively). The scan parameters for sSTEAM were a TR/TE of 4 s/5 ms and 32, 48, and 64 averages (sSTEAM4×32, sSTEAM4×48, and sSTEAM4×64, respectively) in addition to that with a TR/TE of 8 s/5 ms and 32 averages (sSTEAM8×32). Data were analyzed using LCModel. Metabolites quantified with Cramér-Rao lower bounds (CRLBs) >50% were classified as not detected, and metabolites quantified with mean or median CRLBs ≤20% were included for further analysis. The SNR, CRLBs, coefficient of variation (CV), and metabolite concentrations were statistically compared using the Shapiro-Wilk test, one-way ANOVA, or the Friedman test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The sLASER spectra for N-acetylaspartate + N-acetylaspartylglutamate (tNAA) and glutamate (Glu) had a comparable or higher SNR than sSTEAM spectra. Ten metabolites had lower CRLBs than prefixed thresholds: aspartate (Asp), γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), glutamine (Gln), Glu, glutathione (GSH), myo-inositol (Ins), taurine (Tau), the total amount of phosphocholine + glycerophosphocholine (tCho), creatine + phosphocreatine (tCr), and tNAA. Performance of the two sequences was satisfactory except for GABA, for which sLASER yielded higher CRLBs (≥18%) than sSTEAM. Some significant differences in CRLBs were noted, but they were ≤2% except for GABA and Gln. Signal averaging significantly lowered CRLBs for some metabolites but only by a small amount. Measurement repeatability as indicated by median CVs was ≤10% for Gln, Glu, Ins, tCho, tCr, and tNAA in all scans, and that for Asp, GABA, GSH, and Tau was ≥10% under some scanning conditions. The CV for GABA according to sLASER was significantly higher than that according to sSTEAM, whereas the CV for Ins was higher according to sSTEAM. An increase in signal averaging contribute little to lower CVs except for Ins.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both sequences quantified brain metabolites with a high degree of precision and repeatability. They are comparable except for GABA, for which sSTEAM would be a better choice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33392007
doi: 10.21037/qims-20-517
pii: qims-11-01-9
pmc: PMC7719915
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
9-20Informations de copyright
2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-517). TO serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. TO reports grants from Siemens Healthcare K.K., during the conduct of the study; HK reports personal fees from Siemens Healthcare K.K. (Japan), during the conduct of the study; YU reports personal fees from Siemens Healthcare K.K. (Japan), during the conduct of the study; NS was a Siemens Research Collaboration manager in charge of MR Spectroscopy. NS retired in October 2017 and do not currently receive any salary from Siemens. RTS reports personal fees from Siemens Medical Solutions, USA Inc., during the conduct of the study; SA reports personal fees from Siemens Healthineers, during the conduct of the study. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Apr;47(4):629-33
pubmed: 11948722
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Nov;38(5):1224-9
pubmed: 23239232
Magn Reson Med. 2000 Feb;43(2):319-23
pubmed: 10680699
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Oct;40(4):804-12
pubmed: 24446194
JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Mar 1;76(3):314-323
pubmed: 30624573
Front Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 21;8:60
pubmed: 28484398
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Oct;76(4):1083-91
pubmed: 26502373
Magn Reson Med. 1993 Dec;30(6):672-9
pubmed: 8139448
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 May;33(5):1262-7
pubmed: 21509888
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Jan;59(1):1-6
pubmed: 17969076
NMR Biomed. 2016 May;29(5):600-6
pubmed: 26900755
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Oct;62(4):868-79
pubmed: 19591201
J Magn Reson. 1999 Nov;141(1):104-20
pubmed: 10527748
Magn Reson Med. 1990 Apr;14(1):26-30
pubmed: 2161984
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Jun;55(6):1219-26
pubmed: 16688703
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Mar;79(3):1241-1250
pubmed: 28618085
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Apr;65(4):901-10
pubmed: 21413056
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1987;508:333-48
pubmed: 3326459
NMR Biomed. 2018 Apr;31(4):e3898
pubmed: 29436038
NMR Biomed. 1989 Dec;2(5-6):201-8
pubmed: 2641894
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Jan;45(1):187-198
pubmed: 27351712
NMR Biomed. 2012 Feb;25(2):332-9
pubmed: 21796710
Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Oct;33(8):1013-8
pubmed: 26117693
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Apr;79(4):1841-1850
pubmed: 28812315
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jan;49(1):176-183
pubmed: 29659065
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Apr;69(4):931-6
pubmed: 22648904
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Aug;38(2):460-7
pubmed: 23292856
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 17;14(4):e0215210
pubmed: 30995237
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Apr;41(4):649-56
pubmed: 10332839
NMR Biomed. 2012 Jan;25(1):152-60
pubmed: 21766380
Magn Reson Med. 2012 May;67(5):1285-93
pubmed: 21826732
Magn Reson Med. 2014 May;71(5):1657-62
pubmed: 23798466