Andrew Martin Wright1,2, Saipavitra Murali Manohar1,3, Theresia Ziegs1,2, and Anke Henning1,4
1Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany, 2IMPRS for Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience, Tübingen, Germany, 3University of Tübingen, Faculty of Science, Tübingen, Germany, 4Advanced Imaging Research Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
Synopsis
Short TE MRS and very short TR (TR < 300) MRSI are popular
methods to capture snapshots of the neurochemical profile; however, these
popular methods suffer from strong influence from underlaying macromolecular
signals. This work shows a simulation method developed at 9.4T and extendable
to other field strengths to account for macromolecule signals. The method
developed is compared to three more commonly used methods of accounting for macromolecule
signals. Results show improved metabolite mapping by use of simulated
macromolecule basis vectors.
Introduction
MRSI adds valuable diagnostic information
to understanding pathologies such as multiple sclerosis1, tumors2, epilepsy3 and neurodegenerative
diseases4,5 due to detectable variations of the neurochemical
profile. High-resolution 1H-FID MRSI of the human brain has been
showcased previously at 3T6, 7T7, and 9.4T8, and displayed promise in
detecting a more comprehensive neurochemical profile compared to results relying
on longer TE methods and/or lower field strengths9.
However, acquiring high-resolution 1H FID MRSI
data with sufficient coverage of the brain in a time efficient manner requires a very short TR of < 300ms which
leads to substantial T1-weighting of metabolites7,10 and macromolecules11 (MMs). To accurately quantify
1H-FID MRSI data and to derive reliable metabolite maps, an accurate
MM basis is needed as input for spectral fitting. However, it is practically
impossible to experimentally acquire a matching MM basis set as is routinely
done for short TE single voxel spectroscopy12 due to short TRs and SAR
constraints of respective inversion recovery sequences.
Few studies have attempted to account for the MM spectrum in
short TR MRSI data13–15. This study seeks to improve
quantification precision of 1H-FID MRSI data and the quality of
metabolite maps by introducing a relaxation corrected simulated MM model and
cross-validating it against three more commonly used methods to account for MM
signals.Methods
This work uses a MM simulation
model16 to account for underlying MM signals.
Figure 1 shows the algorithm developed to simulated MM signals. The algorithm
simulates Voigt lines and combines knowledge of T1- and T2-relaxation
times in combination with single-spin Bloch simulations to create relaxation
specific MM basis vectors.
Three healthy volunteers participated
in this study with IRB approval and signed consent. An 18/32 Tx/Rx coil17 was utilized to acquire high-resolution
1H-FID-MRSI (TE* = 1.5ms, TR = 300ms) with a matrix size of 64x64 (nominal
voxel size: 3.44x3.44x8mm3), flip angle of 47°, BW of 4000Hz, and 512 data points
acquired. Water references with identical sequence parameters were acquired to
account for bias fields caused by the receive coil and to correct for coil
loading between volunteers. All MRSI data were acquired from a slice positioned
directly above the corpus callosum for each volunteer. Previous
9.4T results have shown the benefits of additional T1-correction of
the metabolite signals in FID MRSI18, which was also applied
herein.
MP2RAGE
data was acquired and reconstructed as described in Hagberg et al.19 and segmented using
SPM1220. The tissue type
composition was then extracted from each voxel and MRSI data was preprocessed as
described by Wright et al.18 Spectral fitting was
performed in LCModel (v-6.3)21 using a FID-sequence basis
set created using VeSPA22.
All basis sets
contained identical metabolite vectors. However, the MM components were altered
with four approaches (Figure 2).Results
Figure 3 displays the fit from a pure WM voxel with four
different MM baseline approaches.
As can be seen in metabolite maps (Figure 4), an Approach B
did not perform well and severely impacted the quality of mI and NAAG maps. It
can be seen that Approaches A, C, and D are relatively similar with resulting
metabolite concentration differences that are not nearly as strong.
Figure 5 regressions show mI and Gln concentrations against
the relative GM fraction. The top compares Approach A and Approach B, and the
bottom compares Approach C and Approach D.Discussion
Figure 2 shows that the MM baseline model varies substantially
between the different methods. Approach A failed to account for MM between 3.1-4.1ppm,
which potentially leads to overestimation of metabolites from 3.4-4.0ppm.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 suggest that Approach B may not be
ideal for fitting MRSI data. Furthermore, the Approach A led to a reduction of
fitted voxels for NAAG. This could lead to misestimation of other metabolites
such as NAA, Glu, Gln, and GABA which overlap with M2.0 in various degrees.
As seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4, Gln is not fitted when using Approach A.
Figure 5 shows that the general trend of metabolites between
WM and GM is relatively similar independent of the MM approach used. However, the
intercept of approach A and B tend to vary with metabolites having resonances
around 2ppm and 3.6ppm. This implies that the MM approaches are seriously
affecting the quality of fit for the metabolites in those regions. It does not
appear to matter much which simulated MM approach is used for fitting as the results
are fairly similar, but it is clear that the simulated MM spectra perform
overall better.
Based on Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 it is evident that
the LCModel settings and experimental baselines both fail to capture different
portions of the neurochemical profile. Thus, using a simulated MM spectrum is likely
the best avenue to achieve accurate, quantitative metabolite mapping in the human
brain.Conclusion
This work investigated quantitative 1H-FID MRSI
with various methods to account for the underlaying MM spectrum. In our
findings using an experimental MM spectrum or the LCModel default simulation
model is not appropriate for MRSI data, while using a relaxation corrected
simulated MM baseline is likely the best option. However, there was not a
strong difference between using Approach C or Approach D.Acknowledgements
This project was co-sponsored by the Horizon 2020 grant /
CDS-QUAMRI / 634541, the ERC Starting Grant / SYNAPLAST / 679927, and the Cancer
Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) Grant / RR180056References
1. Jain S, Sima DM, Sanaei Nezhad F, et
al. Patch-Based Super-Resolution of MR Spectroscopic Images: Application to
Multiple Sclerosis. Front Neurosci. 2017;11(January):1-12.
doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00013
2. Li Y, Larson P, Chen AP, et al.
Short-echo three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of patients with
glioma at 7 tesla for characterization of differences in metabolite levels. J
Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(5):1332-1341. doi:10.1002/jmri.24672
3. Gilliam FG, Maton BM, Martin RC, et al.
Hippocampal 1H-MRSI correlates with severity of depression symptoms in temporal
lobe epilepsy. Neurology. 2007;68(5):364-368.
doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000252813.86812.81
4. Schreiner SJ, Kirchner T, Wyss M, et
al. Low episodic memory performance in cognitively normal elderly subjects is
associated with increased posterior cingulate gray matter N-acetylaspartate: a
1H MRSI study at 7 Tesla. Neurobiol Aging. 2016;48:195-203.
doi:10.1016/J.NEUROBIOLAGING.2016.08.022
5. Schreiner SJ, Kirchner T, Narkhede A,
et al. Brain amyloid burden and cerebrovascular disease are synergistically
associated with neurometabolism in cognitively unimpaired older adults. Neurobiol
Aging. 2018;63:152-161. doi:10.1016/J.NEUROBIOLAGING.2017.12.004
6. Maudsley AA, Domenig C, Govind V, et
al. Mapping of brain metabolite distributions by volumetric proton MR
spectroscopic imaging (MRSI). Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(3):548-559.
doi:10.1002/mrm.21875
7. Bogner W, Gruber S, Trattnig S, Chmelik
M. High-resolution mapping of human brain metabolites by free induction decay 1
H MRSI at 7 T. 2012;(May 2011):873-882. doi:10.1002/nbm.1805
8. Nassirpour S, Chang P, Henning A. High
and ultra-high resolution metabolite mapping of the human brain using 1H FID
MRSI at 9.4T. Neuroimage. 2016;(July):1-11.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.065
9. Motyka S, Moser P, Hingerl L, et al.
The influence of spatial resolution on the spectral quality and quantification
accuracy of whole-brain MRSI at 1.5T, 3T, 7T, and 9.4T. Magn Reson Med.
2019;82(2):551-565. doi:10.1002/mrm.27746
10. Nassirpour S, Chang P, Henning A. High
and ultra-high resolution metabolite mapping of the human brain using 1H FID
MRSI at 9.4T. Neuroimage. 2016;(July):1-11.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.065
11. Murali‐Manohar S, Wright AM, Borbath T,
Avdievich NI, Henning A. A novel method to measure T 1 ‐relaxation times of
macromolecules and quantification of the macromolecular resonances. Magn
Reson Med. August 2020:mrm.28484. doi:10.1002/mrm.28484
12. Cudalbu C, Behar KL, Bhattacharyya PK, et
al. Contribution of macromolecules to brain 1H MR spectra: Experts’ consensus
recommendations. NMR Biomed. 2020. doi:10.1002/nbm.4393
13. Heckova E, Považan M, Strasser B, et al.
Effects of different macromolecular models on reproducibility of FID-MRSI at
7T. Magn Reson Med. 2020;83(1):12-21. doi:10.1002/mrm.27922
14. Považan M, Strasser B, Hangel G, et al.
Simultaneous mapping of metabolites and individual macromolecular components
via ultra-short acquisition delay 1 H MRSI in the brain at 7T. Magn Reson
Med. 2017;00:1-10. doi:10.1002/mrm.26778
15. Nassirpour S, Chang P, Henning A. High
resolution maps of individual macromolecule components in the human brain at
9.4T. In: The ISMRM 25th Annual Meeting & Exhibition. Honolulu, HI,
USA; 2017.
16. Wright A, Murali-Manohar S, Henning A.
Relaxation corrected and Sequence-dependent Macromolecule Baseline Model. In: 27th
Annu Meet Exhib Int Soc Magn Reson Med (ISMRM 2019). Montréal, QC, Canada;
2019.
17. Avdievich NI, Giapitzakis I-A, Bause J,
Shajan G, Scheffler K, Henning A. Double-row 18-loop transceive-32-loop receive
tight-fit array provides for whole-brain coverage, high transmit performance,
and SNR improvement near the brain center at 9.4T. Magn Reson Med.
2019;81(5):3392-3405. doi:10.1002/mrm.27602
18. Wright A, Murali Manohar S, Henning A.
Quantitative Metabolite Mapping of the Human Brain at 9.4 T. 2020:158.
19. Hagberg GE, Bause J, Ethofer T, et al.
Whole brain MP2RAGE-based mapping of the longitudinal relaxation time at 9.4T. Neuroimage.
2017;144:203-216. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.047
20. Ashburner J, Barnes G, Chen C, et al. SPM12
Manual. Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London, UK; 2014.
21. Provencher SW. Automatic quantitation of
localizedin vivo1H spectra with LCModel. NMR Biomed. 2001;14(4):260-264.
doi:10.1002/nbm.698
22. Soher B. Versatile Simulation Pulses and
Analysis. User Code Contributions – semi-LASER.
https://scion.duhs.duke.edu/vespa/contrib/wiki/1f03e57e-1d27-4d36-8b31-db9e5e2f73e82013.