Zhengchao Dong1,2, Mate Milak1,2, and J John Mann1,2
1Department of Pshchiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States, 2Division of Molecular Imaging, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, United States
Synopsis
Proton MRS
thermometry exploits the property of temperature dependence of water signal. Most of MRS thermometry utilizes partially suppressed water signal or separately measured water signal without water suppression, in addition to the water suppressed signal for metabolites. This work shows that these approaches are either inaccurate or imprecise. The resultant errors may undermine clinically significant temperature changes. Simultaneous or interleaved measurement of unsuppressed water signal and metabolite/lipid signal is desirable.
INTRODUCTION
Proton
MRS-based thermometry exploits the chemical shift (CS) difference between
water, whose CS is temperature-dependent, and a temperature-independent reference, such as NAA, to
measure tissue temperature in absolute value [1-3]. The accuracy of MRS
thermometry depends on accurate measurement of water resonance. In most cases,
the water frequency is obtained from partially suppressed 1H MRS or from
separately acquired non-water-suppressed 1H MRS, in addition to a water
suppressed MRS for NAA measurement. Despite the general recognition that the frequency
of suppressed water is altered by water suppression pulses [4], no quantitative studies assess the accuracy
and precision of water suppressed 1H MRS thermometry. This issue is of importance
because the temperature in human body part such as the brain may fluctuate 2-3 oC
under different pathophysiological conditions and a temperature change of a
fraction of a degree may be clinically relevant [5]. The purpose of
the current study was to estimate the accuracy and precision of 1H MRS
thermometry that uses partially suppressed water or separately measured unsuppressed water signals.METHODS
Data acquisition
All data were acquired on a 3T scanner (GE Discovery 750W) with an 8-channel
head coil from 10 human subjects after obtaining approval from IRB and informed
consent from the participants. The schedule of 1H MRS scan is shown in Figure 1.
Scans were performed with PRESS sequence with the following parameters: TR=3s,
TE=68ms, spectral width=5000 Hz, FID data points=1024, voxel size=30x25x25 mm3. The voxel was placed in the medial prefrontal cortex. Total MRS scan time was about 90 min.
Data processing
We first combined the signals from coil elements. We employed peak picking method for frequency
measurement as we found it was more accurate than spectral fitting in our case.
We calculated frequency differences between: (1) the two unsuppressed water
signals fw1w2, (2) the
first two partially suppressed water signals fw1’w2’, and (3) the second unsuppressed water and the
first suppressed water fw2w1’.
We converted frequency differences in Hz to the “equivalent” temperature differences in oC using the
following equation:
ΔTab=97.134(fb - fa)/f0
where f0 is the system frequency
in MHz and a/b represents w1,2 or w1’,2’. We calculated
the means and standard deviations of {ΔTab}N (where N = 6) of the 6 pairs of the two unsuppressed water signals, the
two suppressed water signals, and the 2nd unsuppressed water and the
1st partially suppressed water, respectively, for each of the 10 subjects
(Figures 2,3). In ideal case,
Δfab and ΔTab should be zero and we therefore
termed non-zero values of Δfab and ΔTab as errors of the frequency
and the temperature, respectively. We performed T-test and F-test to determine
if there are significant differences in the means and the variations of the {ΔTab} among the subjects.
RESULTS
The rate of water suppression was
about 90% to 95%, leaving partially suppressed water signal of about 5% to 10% of
unsuppressed water. Visual inspection reveals frequency shifts and lineshape
distortions of the partially suppressed water signal compared with the
unsuppressed water signal (Fig. 2). The frequency differences may render a
temperature error up to 1.6 oC. The variations of the temperature
differences between unsuppressed and partially suppressed water signals ΔTw2w1’, converted from the
frequency differences, are significantly larger than those of ΔTw1w2 or ΔTw1’w2’ (Fig. 3, Table 1),
indicating poor precision. Numerical calculation shows that the errors in
absolute temperature can be as large as 0.6 oC. The mean values of temperature
differences between unsuppressed and suppressed water in individual subjects are
far from the zero value, indicating low accuracy.
DISCUSSION
Many factors, including B0
field shift, subject motion, and spectral artifacts, may cause frequency shifts
of the water signals, thus introducing errors in temperature measurement. Because two contiguous FIDs in Fig. 1 are
separated only by 12 seconds, the frequency shifts between the two unsuppressed
water FIDs (w1 and w2) or between the two partially suppressed water FIDs (w1’,
w2’) should be small, which is largely in agreement with the results (Fig. 3,
Table 1). Therefore, the significantly large variations in frequencies of
unsuppressed and partially suppressed water signals may be mainly attributed to
the spectral artifacts caused by water suppression pulses. CONCLUSION
The relatively small variations
between suppressed water signals or unsuppressed water signals but large
variations between suppressed and unsuppressed water signals show that (1)
using partially suppressed water signal in MRS-based thermometry may have systematic
errors in absolute temperature values and (2) using separately measured
unsuppressed water and NAA signals may have large variation in repeated
temperature measurements. These errors may undermine clinically significant temperature
changes. Simultaneous measurement of unsuppressed water and NAA is highly recommended [6, 7]. Acknowledgements
References
1. Murakami,
T., et al., Brain temperature measured by
using proton MR spectroscopy predicts cerebral hyperperfusion after carotid
endarterectomy. Radiology, 2010. 256(3):
p. 924-31.
2. Babourina-Brooks, B., et al., MRS water resonance frequency in childhood
brain tumours: a novel potential biomarker of temperature and tumour
environment. NMR Biomed, 2014. 27(10):
p. 1222-9.
3. Inoue, T., et al., Noninvasive measurement of human brain temperature
adjacent to arteriovenous malformation using 3.0T magnetic resonance
spectroscopy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2013. 115(4): p. 445-9.
4. Dehkharghani, S., et al., Proton resonance frequency chemical shift
thermometry: experimental design and validation toward high-resolution
noninvasive temperature monitoring and in vivo experience in a nonhuman primate
model of acute ischemic stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2015. 36(6): p. 1128-35.
5. Thrippleton, M.J., et al., Reliability of MRSI brain temperature mapping
at 1.5 and 3 T. NMR Biomed, 2014. 27(2):
p. 183-90.
6. Dong, Z., Proton MRS and MRSI of the brain without water suppression. Prog
Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc, 2015. 86-87:
p. 65-79.
7. Maudsley, A.A., M.Z. Goryawala, and
S. Sheriff, Effects of tissue susceptibility
on brain temperature mapping. Neuroimage, 2017. 146: p. 1093-1101.