Tsang-Wei Tu1,2, Jaclyn Witko2, and Joseph Frank2
1Howard University, Washington, DC, United States, 2National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
Synopsis
Delayed glucose hypometabolism has been reported in
traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients from weeks to years posing a high risk
for neurodegenerative diseases. This study shows
the feasibility of glucoCEST weighted MRI (GWI) to detect metabolic
abnormalities following TBI on 7T and 9.4T. The GWI results were compared to
2DG autoradiography and immunohistochemitry indicating that the injured brain
needed immediate energy to restore nervous function and then entered a
hypometabolism state in week 2. GWI affords the sensitivity to detect cerebral metabolic
states following TBI and has potential to identify the treatment window to
increase neuronal survival.
Introduction
Delay in glucose hypometabolism has been
reported in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients from weeks to years posing a
high risk for neurodegenerative diseases.1 Recently, the MRI based
molecular imaging, known as glucose chemical exchange saturation transfer
(glucoCEST) has been introduced for detecting glucose without radioisotopes.2
The CEST contrast is related to the proton exchange rate, number of
exchangeable protons, pH, T1, T2, saturation amplitude and efficiency, with
many of these factors being closely related to the magnetic field strength of
the scanner. This study compared the glucoCEST weighted images (GWI) acquired
on 7T and 9.4T for the changes related to glucose metabolism in experimental
TBI.Materials and Methods
TBI was induced on female 10-week-old rats by a
2m/450g weight drop model. Rats were imaged at baseline, day 1, week 1, 2, 3, 4
post injury on Bruker 7T and 9.4T (n=6, each time point). Diffusion tensor
imaging (DTI) was first performed; fractional anisotropy (FA) were derived for
diffuse axonal injury (DAI). CEST data were acquired from -4 to +4ppm, 0.25ppm
stepping by fast spin echo for 7T (TR/TE 2.5s/10.4ms; 200µm2; MT
pulse 2μT, 2s) and 9.4T (TR/TE 2.1s/10.4ms; 200µm2; MT pulse 1.5μT,
1s).1 WASSR correction3 was applied for B0/B1 correction.
GWI were derived by integrating the asymmetry of magnetization transfer ratio
(MTRasym) at 1.2, 2.1 and 2.9ppm.1 3 rats at each time
point were randomly picked for axon (SMI31), neuron (NeuN), glucose
transporters (Glut3/Glut1) and apoptosis (TUNEL) stainings and 2DG
autoradiography. Data from cortex (CT) were analyzed by one-way ANOVA.Results
After TBI, FA exhibited 12–18% decrease at
corpus callosum in day 1 on both 7T and 9.4T indicative of DAI (see Figures).
Compared to the baseline GWI, an immediate increase of MTRasym was
seen on day 1 by both 7T and 9.4T (+10%, p=NS). Significant decreases of MTRasym
were detected by 7T (-49%, p<0.01) and 9.4T (-32%, p<0.01) from week 2 to
week 3, and a gradual returned toward the baseline level was seen on 7T (-36%,
p<0.05) and 9.4T (-20%, p=NS) by week 4. 2DG substantiated the trends
demonstrating an immediately increase of glucose uptake at day 1 and reached
the lowest at week 2 (-19% of the baseline level, p<0.05) and then
normalized at week 4 (p=NS). Glut3 and Glut1 stainings showed 1 to 3 folds
increase (p<0.01) on day 1 then normalzed after week 2.Discussion
This study shows the feasibility of GWI to detect the
hypometabolism in TBI on 7T and 9.4T by adapting a low-to-moderate saturation
power (1.5-2μT) with short duration length (1-2s). The advantage of higher
fields (>7T) CEST allows prolonged storage of saturation, improved the
saturation efficiency and the frequency separation.2-4 At 9.4T, GWI
required a critical power range to prevent large direct saturation competing
with hydroxyl proton exchanges of glucose.4 The GWI results parallel
with 2DG and IHC indicating that the injured brain needed immediate energy to
restore the nervous function right after injury and entered a hypometabolism
state in week 2. GWI affords the sensitivity to identify the window for
treatments to increase neuronal survival in TBI.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Bergsneider
et al., J Neurotrauma, 2000, 17: 389-401.
2.
Chan et al., MRM, 2012, 68:1764-73.
3.
Kim et al. MRM, 2009 61:1441-1450.
4.
van Zijl and Yadav, MRM, 2011 65:927-48.