Synopsis
This study investigates the possibility
of estimating water exchange across the
blood-brain barrier by manipulating the T1 of blood using a
gadolinium-based contrast agent, together with pre- and post-contrast Arterial Spin Labelling measurements. Gadolinium lowers the T1 of blood,
but not of tissue, allowing the proportions of label in intra- and extra-vascular
tissue to be estimated. A Look-Locker readout was used to measure the temporal evolution
of the ASL signal at four doses of contrast agent. Even with T1 of
approximately 500ms, an ASL subtraction signal was still detected at an inversion time of 2s, indicating
that labelled blood water has exchanged with tissue water.Purpose
Breakdown of the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB) is implicated in many brain diseases
such as MS, stroke and neurodegeneration
1. Gadolinium contrast
agents and dynamic T
1-weighted imaging can be used to measure leakage
of Gadolinium across the BBB. However, subtle breakdown is hard to detect
2,
probably due to the relatively large molecular weight (~500 Da) of the agent. Measurements of endothelial water
exchange may demonstrate
greater and more reliable BBB differences between healthy brain and early
disease. Several MRI sequences have been proposed to measure water exchange
3,4
but sensitivity is generally poor
5. Here we propose an approach to
increase the sensitivity of ASL to water exchange through the introduction of
very small doses of Gadolinium contrast agent which alter the T
1 of
blood. This will increase the sensitivity of the measurement to water exchange,
but will reduce the signal to noise ratio due to signal decay during transit. This
study investigates the feasibility of this approach using simulations and
imaging.
Methods - Simulation
As a simple proof of principle, the Buxton model
6
was adapted to allow the T
1 of the labelled water within the voxel
to vary linearly between that of tissue and that of blood, as a function of the
mean extraction fraction E (E=1 for complete exchange for which T
1 =
T
1tissue; E=0 for no exchange for which T
1 = T
1blood).
Model parameters were CBF=60 ml/min/100ml, arrival time=500ms, bolus
duration=1000ms, T
1tissue=1.3s, T
1blood=1.6s, blood-brain
partition coefficient=0.9.
Methods - Imaging
One person was scanned on a Philips 3T Achieva system using a
Look-Locker ASL sequence
7 with 17 inversion times (TI) 120ms apart. STAR
labeling was employed with 15cm labelling slab and zero distance between label
and imaging slab. Other parameters were: 80 control/label pairs, TR=2500 ms; TE=22ms;
flip angle 40 degrees; 3.5 x3.5 x 7 mm voxels with 1mm gap between 3 axial slices.
Bipolar ‘vascular crusher’ gradients were added to dephase fast flowing spins
and so remove large vessel signal, increasing the sensitivity to exchanged
water. A measurement of T
1blood was made using the ‘Varela’
technique
8 in a single slice through the sagittal sinus. Parameters
were as described in the reference, with the collection of 20 averages to improve the
precision of the estimate. Measurements were made at baseline and following consecutive contrast
agent injections of 0.8ml, 1.6ml and 2.1ml of Dotarem. These were chosen to give
a cumulative reduction of T
1blood from 1.60s at baseline to 1.06s,
0.63s and 0.41s assuming relaxivity of 3.5 mM
-1s
-1 and
total blood volume of 4.4L. One minute was left following injection before
measurement to allow equilibration. Estimation of CBF and arrival time was made by fitting a single compartment model, adapted for Look-Locker readout
9,
to the global signal from the pre-contrast data, with bolus duration of 1.1s
and T
1blood of 1.6s. The post-contrast ASL data were fitted for T
1 using the values for CBF and arrival time estimated from the baseline
data.
Results - Simulation
Figure 1 shows the
simulated ASL signal difference in the case of no contrast agent (a) and
contrast agent that reduces T
1blood to 0.7 s(b). In the latter case it can be
seen that there is a large dependence on E, however the signal is more than
halved compared to the no-contrast signal.
Results -Imaging
T
1 measurements
(the mean from a small region over the sagittal sinus) were 1.33s, 1.18s, 0.51s
and 0.45s, in approximate agreement with the predicted signal change according
to dose. Figure 2 shows the ASL signal difference for the 4 measurements along
with the fitted curves. T
1 was estimated as 1.6s (fixed), 1.39s,
1.20s and 1.08s. It is clear that signal has not decayed as much as would be
expected according to the known blood T
1, suggesting that there is
substantial exchange of water into the extravascular space where T
1
is higher. This is supported by the subtraction images (Figure 3) which show
reasonably high signal at TI of 2s after even the highest contrast agent dose.
Discussion
Despite
strong shortening of T
1 (from dose calculation and confirmed on T
1
measurements), ASL signal is maintained at a relatively high TI of 2s, suggesting that water is exchanging into
tissue quickly after labelling. Future work will develop a 2-compartment model
to estimate exchange.
Conclusion
This
approach could provide estimates of water exchange in vivo in a clinically
acceptable time.
Acknowledgements
This work is
supported by the EPSRC Sensing and Imaging for Diagnosis of Dementias grant
(EP/M005909/1).References
1. B. V. Zlokovic (2008). `The blood-brain
barrier in health and chronic neurodegenerative disorders.'. Neuron 57(2):178-201.
2. P. A. Armitage, et al. (2011). `Use
of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to measure subtle blood-brain barrier
abnormalities.'. Magnetic resonance
imaging 29(3):305-314.
3. J. A. Wells,
et al. (2013). `Measuring biexponential transverse relaxation of the ASL
signal at 9.4 T to estimate arterial oxygen saturation and the time of exchange
of labeled blood water into cortical brain tissue.'. Journal of
cerebral blood flow and metabolism 33(2):215-224.
4. L. M. Parkes & P. S. Tofts (2002). `Improved
accuracy of human cerebral blood perfusion measurements using arterial spin
labeling: accounting for capillary water permeability.'. Magnetic resonance in medicine 48(1):27-41.
5.
J. P. Carr, et al. (2007). `What
levels of precision are achievable for quantification of perfusion and
capillary permeability surface area product using ASL?'. Magnetic resonance in medicine 58(2):281-289.
6.
R. B. Buxton, et al. (1998). `A
general kinetic model for quantitative perfusion imaging with arterial spin
labeling.'. Magnetic resonance in
medicine 40(3):383-396.
7.
M. Günther, et al. (2001).
`Arterial spin labeling in combination with a look-locker sampling strategy:
inflow turbo-sampling EPI-FAIR (ITS-FAIR).'. Magnetic resonance in
medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine /
Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 46(5):974-984.
8.
M. Varela, et al. (2011). `A method
for rapid in vivo measurement of blood T1.'. NMR in biomedicine 24(1):80-88.
9.
S. Al-Bachari, et al. (2014).
`Arterial spin labelling reveals prolonged arterial arrival time in idiopathic
Parkinson's disease.'. NeuroImage. Clinical 6:1-8.