Samantha By1,2, Alex K. Smith1,2, Adrienne N. Dula2,3, Bailey D. Lyttle2, Siddharama Pawate4, and Seth A. Smith2,3
1Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States, 2Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States, 3Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States, 4Neurology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
Synopsis
Amide proton
transfer (APT) CEST was applied to healthy and multiple sclerosis (MS) cohorts
to determine its sensitivity to changes in normal appearing white matter in MS.
Using a Lorentzian difference analysis, differences in the z-spectra of the MS
and healthy cohorts around the APT frequency (Δω=+3.5 ppm) were observed.
Significant differences in APT effect between MS and healthy controls were seen
in the whole cord (p=0.0159), dorsal column (p=0.0159), and gray matter
(p=0.0317). Lastly, a group-wise analysis highlights the ability to detect a
decrease in mean APT effect in the MS cohort, despite the difficulty in
detecting lesions in the anatomical. Purpose
Sensorimotor disability in
multiple sclerosis (MS) is largely affected by damage to the integrity of the
spinal cord
1. However, the ability to evaluate spinal cord lesions
is limited. For example, conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods,
such as T1- and T2- weighted imaging, are only sensitive
to necrotic or inflammatory lesions. In MS, however, a myriad of other changes
are present including demyelination, axonal loss, and gliosis with additional
cellular changes that are often undetected
in
vivo. This lack of sensitivity to microstructural, biochemical changes that
may precede inflammatory lesions with standard MRI techniques requires an
improved set of imaging biomarkers for evaluating the spinal cord. Chemical
exchange saturation transfer (CEST) is a method that indirectly detects mobile
species with exchangeable protons, such as the backbone amide protons of mobile
proteins and peptides
2. This derived CEST index, amide proton
transfer (APT), may provide information reflective of molecular changes
occurring in normal appearing white matter in MS patients. Here, we apply APT
CEST in the cervical spinal cord of healthy and MS cohorts to determine the
sensitivity to MS pathology at 3T.
Methods
Four healthy controls (28±6 years old, 3M/1F) and five
relapsing-remitting MS patients (40±7 years old, 2M/3F) were recruited
for this study after signed, informed consent. Imaging was acquired using a
3.0T whole body MR scanner (Philips Achieva, Netherlands). A two-channel body
coil in multi-transmit mode was used for excitation and a 16-channel SENSE
neurovascular coil was used for reception.
A high-resolution (0.65x0.65x5mm3)
three echo, multi-echo gradient echo (mFFE) anatomical was acquired in the
axial plane for co-registration (TR/TE1/ΔTE=752/7.1/8.8 ms). The CEST
sequence consisted of a 3D gradient echo with multi-shot EPI readout (EPI
factor=7, SENSE factor RL=2, 20° flip angle, TR/TE=155/12 ms) covering
14 slices from C2-C5 with a resolution of 1x1x5 mm3 over a FOV of
160x160 mm2. CEST saturation was achieved with 3 μT pulse (a single 75
ms RF Gaussian pre-pulse), sampling at 47 asymmetric offsets between +/- 10 ppm;
two scans with no saturation were acquired for reference. Total scan duration
was 12:35 minutes.
All CEST data from each volunteer was
registered to the mFFE using a diffeomorphic algorithm in ANTS3. CEST
spectra were normalized voxel-by-voxel using the average of the non-saturated
reference scans. The APT CEST concentration was quantified using a Lorentzian fit
with a baseline offset4, which simultaneously corrects for B0 inhomogeneity
(spectra shift to the minimum of the Lorentzian fit) and baseline saturation. The APT effect was quantified as the
integrated area between the fit and the z-spectrum
from +3.2-3.8 ppm. Region of interests (ROIs) were manually drawn on the
anatomical mFFE to assess different tracts of the spinal cord (dorsal column,
lateral column, gray matter, whole cord). To test whether APT CEST is sensitive
to pathological changes in the cervical spinal cord, a non-parametric Wilcoxon
rank sum test was performed for the different tracts. Additionally, we
performed a group analysis by co-registering (diffeomorphic) each cohort to
each other and averaging the signals across volunteers to produce one map for
MS and one map for healthy controls, highlighting the spatial dependencies of
the APT effect in the spinal cord.
Results
Figure 1 shows the mean
z-spectra of the healthy and MS cohorts derived from the dorsal column.
Differences around the APT frequency (Δω=+3.5
ppm) are observed, marked by the dip in the z-spectrum for the healthy controls
(red) and a diminished APT effect in the MS patients (blue, p < 0.05). Figure
2 shows a box plot of the mean APT effect for controls (gray) and MS patients (white)
in different white matter columns, gray matter and whole cord at the C3/C4 level.
Significant differences between MS and healthy controls were seen in the whole
cord (p=0.0159), dorsal column (p=0.0159), and gray matter (p=0.0317); a trend
towards decreased APT in the MS cohort was observed in the lateral columns
(p=0.0635). In comparison to the healthy controls, the APT map of the MS cohort
is profoundly lower (Figure 3) relative to the controls. Despite the difficulty in
detecting lesions in the mean mFFE of the MS cohort, the differences,
especially in the dorsal column, between the mean APT effect in healthy
controls (1.88±0.44%) and MS patients (0.90±0.17) indicate the ability to characterize disparity
between cohorts.
Discussion
We demonstrate that APT CEST may
provide enhanced characterization of normal appearing white matter of the
cervical spinal cord in MS patients at 3T. These findings provide insight on
the clinical feasibility of APT CEST and motivate further investigation for
examination of this technique for evaluation of disease evolution.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1.
Zhou,
J., et al., Nature Medicine, 2003. 9(8): p. 1085-1090.
2.
Bot,
J.C., et al., Neurol, 2004. 62, p. 226-233.
3.
Avants, B.B. et al., Insight
Journal, 2009.
4.
Jones,
D.K. et al., MRM, 2012. 67(6): p. 1579-1589.