4.5 Article

Quantitative Assessment of Amide Proton Transfer (APT) and Nuclear Overhauser Enhancement (NOE) Imaging with Extrapolated Semi-Solid Magnetization Transfer Reference (EMR) Signals: Application to a Rat Glioma Model at 4.7 Tesla

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 137-149

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25581

关键词

MT; CEST; APT; NOE; brain tumor

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01EB009731, R01CA166171, R01NS083435, R21EB015555]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To quantify amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) contributions to in vivo chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI signals in tumors. Theory and Methods: Two-pool (free water and semi-solid protons) and four-pool (free water, semi-solid, amide, and upfield NOE-related protons) tissue models combined with the super-Lorentzian lineshape for semi-solid protons were used to fit wide and narrow frequency-offset magnetization-transfer (MT) data, respectively. Extrapolated semi-solid MT signals at 3.5 and 3.5 ppm from water were used as reference signals to quantify APT and NOE, respectively. Six glioma-bearing rats were scanned at 4.7 Tesla. Quantitative APT and NOE signals were compared at three saturation power levels. Results: The observed APT signals were significantly higher in the tumor (center and rim) than in the contralateral normal brain tissue at all saturation powers, and were the major contributor to the APT-weighted image contrast (based on MT asymmetry analysis) between the tumor and the normal brain tissue. The NOE (a positive confounding factor) enhanced this APT-weighted image contrast. The fitted amide pool sizes were significantly larger, while the NOE-related pool sizes were significantly smaller in the tumor than in the normal brain tissue. Conclusion: The extrapolated semi-solid magnetization transfer reference provides a relatively accurate approach for quantitatively measuring pure APT and NOE signals. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据