Kimberly L Chan1,2,3, Richard AE Edden2,3, and Peter B Barker2,3
1Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States, 2Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States, 3F.M. Kirby Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States
Synopsis
2-hydroxyglutarate
(2HG) is formed in some brain tumors due to a mutation of isocitrate
dehydrogenase (IDH), and is becoming an important biomarker for tumor
classification. Various approaches have been proposed for the in vivo measurement of 2HG using MR
spectroscopy, including spectral-editing using the MEGA-PRESS technique. This
abstract investigates 2HG editing at 3T using density-matrix simulations and
phantom experiments. It is demonstrated that MEGA-PRESS detection of 2HG
is best performed at an echo time of 100 ms, applying editing pulses to the 1.9
ppm spins and detecting the 4.0 ppm signal, and employing high-bandwidth
refocusing pulses.Purpose
To optimize the MEGA-PRESS pulse sequence for
the detection of the oncometabolite, 2-Hydroxyglutarate (2HG).
Introduction
2HG is formed in some brain tumors as a result of mutation
of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), and has important implications for tumor
classification and prognosis. 2HG is present at very low levels in healthy
brain tissue, but may be present in the mM range in tumors and is therefore
potentially detectable in vivo using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Several
different MRS approaches to measuring 2HG have been proposed, including direct detection in conventional PRESS spectra using appropriate
spectral fitting routines [1] , or by using J-difference editing to remove
overlying signals and selectively detect 2HG.
In this abstract, optimum conditions for 2HG spectral-editing are
investigated using density-matrix simulations and phantom experiments.
2HG, whose structure is shown in Figure 1, has a 1H spectrum
with signals at 4.01 ppm (CH), 2.2 ppm (CH2) and 1.9 ppm (CH2). In theory, editing could be performed either
by applying frequency-selective pulses at 4.01 ppm and detecting difference-edited
signal at 1.9 ppm, or vice versa.
Detection of the 1.9 ppm signal is boosted by representing two protons,
but hindered by the unpredictable evolution of (strong) coupling to the signal
at 2.2 ppm.
Methods
Simulations: MEGA-PRESS simulations were performed for TEs
70 ms-240 ms in 10 ms increments with parameters: simulated B0 3T; 10
ms sinc-Gaussian editing pulses (comparing ON at 1.9 ppm to ON at 4.01 ppm); ‘GTST’
slice-selective refocusing pulses; 2 kHz spectral width; 2048 points; 8-Hertz
exponential line-broadening; zero-filling to 8192 datapoints. The first PRESS spin-echo duration (TE1) was
fixed at 13.4 ms.
Phantom experiments: Experiments with matched parameters
to the above simulations were performed on a 26 mM 2HG phantom using a Philips
Achieva 3T scanner using 20 Hz exponential line-broadening. The full TE series was acquired with 14-ms
editing pulses applied at 1.9 ppm. Phantom experiments were also performed at a
TE of 100 ms using a range of slice-selective refocusing pulses including
sinc-Gaussian (bandwidth 800 Hz), GTST (bandwidth 1.3 kHz) and
frequency-modulated (bandwidth 2.2 kHz), with editing pulses applied at 1.9
ppm.
Results
Comparing the two simulated TE-series in Figure 2a, it can be
seen that the strong coupling between spins at 1.9 ppm and 2.2 ppm results in
complex behavior with editing of these signals when editing pulses are applied
at 4.02 ppm. In contrast, the 4.02 ppm signal follows a more conventional
TE-dependence. The integrals of these
spectra (shown in Figure 2b) show that the maximal integral is similar in both;
differences between the simulations and phantom experiments at longer TEs probably
reflect the absence of any T2 relaxation in the simulations. Phantom data acquired with editing pulses at
1.9 ppm agree qualitatively with simulations, both in lineshape as shown in
Figure 3a and TE-dependence as shown in Figure 3b. The benefits of
high-bandwidth refocusing is apparent with GTST (high-bandwidth
amplitude-modulated) refocusing pulses giving 47% more signal than
sinc-Gaussian (medium-bandwidth amplitude-modulated) refocusing. High-bandwidth
frequency modulated refocusing pulses give a further 26% improvement in signal
yield.
Discussion
Simulations show that, although detecting the single proton at
4.02 ppm is at a disadvantage compared to detecting the two 1.9 ppm protons,
the maximal edited signal is similar in both cases. Since the integral plotted in Figure 3b
represents both the 1.9 ppm and 2.3 ppm signals, the efficiency of editing of
the 4.02 ppm signal is approximately four times higher. It is also noteworthy that the 4.02-detection
timecourse has a maximum at a lower echo time (100 ms compared to 150 ms) which
will be beneficial under in vivo conditions of more rapid transverse
relaxation.
High-bandwidth refocusing pulses benefit MEGA-PRESS detection
as they minimize signal losses associated with spatial inhomogeneity of
coupling evolution [2]. In addition the
high bandwidth refocusing pulses used in the current study have better slice
profiles, which also contributes to the SNR improvement seen.
In conclusion, the MEGA-PRESS detection of 2HG is best
performed at an echo time of approximately 100 ms (at least in a phantom;
slightly shorted TE might be beneficial in vivo, depending on the in vivo 2HG
T2 relaxation time) applying editing pulses to the 1.9 ppm spins to detect
signal at 4.02 ppm, and employing high-bandwidth refocusing pulses.
Acknowledgements
Supported in part by NIHP41EB015909. We are grateful to Dr Changho Choi for
sharing a sample of 2HG with us.References
1. Choi
C, Ganji SK, DeBerardinis RJ, Hatanpaa KJ, Rakheja D, Kovacs Z, Yang X-L,
Mashimo T, Raisanen JM, Marin-Valencia I, et al. 2-hydroxyglutarate detection
by magnetic resonance spectroscopy in IDH-mutated patients with gliomas. Nat
Med 2012;18:624–9.
2. Edden
RAE, Barker PB. Spatial effects in the detection of gamma-aminobutyric acid:
improved sensitivity at high fields using inner volume saturation. Magn Reson
Med 2007;58:1276–82.