4.5 Article

Downfield-NOE-suppressed amide-CEST-MRI at 7 Tesla provides a unique contrast in human glioblastoma

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 196-208

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26100

关键词

AREX; CEST; aromatic rNOE; aliphatic rNOE; relaxation-compensated CEST; spillover correction; relaxation compensation; brain tumor; glioblastoma; 7T; ultra-high field

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) effect observed in brain tissue in vivo at the frequency offset 3.5ppm downfield of water was assigned to amide protons of the protein backbone. Obeying a base-catalyzed exchange process such an amide-CEST effect would correlate with intracellular pH and protein concentration, correlations that are highly interesting for cancer diagnosis. However, recent experiments suggested that, besides the known aliphatic relayed-nuclear Overhauser effect (rNOE) upfield of water, an additional downfield rNOE is apparent in vivo resonating as well around +3.5ppm. In this study, we present further evidence for the underlying downfield-rNOE signal, and we propose a first method that suppresses the downfield-rNOE contribution to the amide-CEST contrast. Thus, an isolated amide-CEST effect depending mainly on amide proton concentration and pH is generated. MethodsThe isolation of the exchange mediated amide proton effect was investigated in protein model-solutions and tissue lysates and successfully applied to in vivo CEST images of 11 glioblastoma patients. ResultsComparison with gadolinium contrast enhancing longitudinal relaxation time-weighted images revealed that the downfield-rNOE-suppressed amide-CEST contrast forms a unique contrast that delineates tumor regions and show remarkable overlap with the gadolinium contrast enhancement. ConclusionThus, suppression of the downfield rNOE contribution might be the important step to yield the amide proton CEST contrast originally aimed at. Magn Reson Med 77:196-208, 2017. (c) 2016 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