Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 346–356 | Cite as

Repeatability of amide proton transfer–weighted signals in the brain according to clinical condition and anatomical location

  • Jung Bin Lee
  • Ji Eun Park
  • Seung Chai JungEmail author
  • Youngheun Jo
  • Donghyun Kim
  • Ho Sung Kim
  • Choong-Gon Choi
  • Sang Joon Kim
  • Dong-Wha Kang
Magnetic Resonance
  • 128 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate whether clinical condition, imaging session, and locations affect repeatability of amide proton transfer–weighted (APTw) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the brain.

Materials and methods

Three APTw MRI data sets were acquired, involving two intrasession scans and one intersession scan for 19 healthy, 15 glioma, and 12 acute stroke adult participants (mean age 53.8, 54.6, and 68.5, respectively) on a 3T MR scanner. The mean APTw signals from five locations in healthy brain (supratentorial and infratentorial locations) and from entire tumor and stroke lesions (supratentorial location) were calculated. The within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated for each clinical conditions, image sessions, and anatomic locations. Differences in APTw signals between sessions were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance.

Results

The ICC and wCV were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91–0.99) and 16.1 (12.6–21.3) in glioma, 0.93 (0.82–0.98) and 15.0 (11.4–20.6) in stroke, and 0.84 (0.72–0.91) and 34.0 (28.7–41.0) in healthy brain. There were no significant differences in APTw signal between three sessions, irrespective of disease condition and location. The ICC and wCV were 0.85 (0.68–0.94) and 27.4 (21.8–35.6) in supratentorial, and 0.44 (− 0.18 to 0.76) and 32.7 (25.9 to 42.9) in infratentorial locations. There were significant differences in APTw signal between supra- (mean, 0.49%; 95% CI, 0.38–0.61) and infratentorial locations (1.09%, 0.98–1.20; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The repeatability of APTw signal was excellent in supratentorial locations, while it was poor in infratentorial locations due to severe B0 inhomogeneity and susceptibility which affects MTR asymmetry.

Key Points

• In supratentorial locations, APTw MRI showed excellent intrasession and intersession repeatability in brains of healthy controls and patients with glioma, as well as in stroke-affected regions.

• APTw MRI showed excellent repeatability in supratentorial locations, but poor repeatability in infratentorial locations.

• Considering poor repeatability in the infratentorial locations, the use of APTw MRI in longitudinal assessment in infratentorial locations is not indicated.

Keywords

Amides Repeatability Brain tumors Stroke Magnetic resonance imaging 

Abbreviations

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

APTw

Amide proton transfer–weighted

CEST

Chemical exchange saturation transfer

CI

Confidence interval

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MTR

Magnetization transfer ratio

RF

Radiofrequency

ROI

Region of interest

TE

Echo time

TR

Repetition time

TSE

Turbo spin echo

wCV

Within-subject coefficient of variation

WHO

World Health Organization

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank all patients with glioma and stroke, as well as the healthy volunteers, who kindly agreed to participate in the present study. We also thank Seonok Kim in the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea, for her contributions regarding interpretation of the results.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health, Welfare & Family Affairs, Republic of Korea (HI12C1847).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ho Sung Kim.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

Seonok Kim kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6285_MOESM1_ESM.docx (588 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 588 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ward KM, Aletras AH, Balaban RS (2000) A new class of contrast agents for MRI based on proton chemical exchange dependent saturation transfer (CEST). J Magn Reson 143:79–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Zijl PC, Yadav NN (2011) Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST): what is in a name and what isn’t? Magn Reson Med 65:927–948PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McMahon MT, Gilad AA, Zhou J, Sun PZ, Bulte JW, van Zijl PC (2006) Quantifying exchange rates in chemical exchange saturation transfer agents using the saturation time and saturation power dependencies of the magnetization transfer effect on the magnetic resonance imaging signal (QUEST and QUESP): pH calibration for poly‐L‐lysine and a starburst dendrimer. Magn Reson Med 55:836–847PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harston GW, Tee YK, Blockley N et al (2014) Identifying the ischaemic penumbra using pH-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Brain 138:36–42PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, Traystman RJ, van Zijl PC (2003) Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med 9:1085–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou J, Lal B, Wilson DA et al (2003) Amide proton transfer (APT) contrast for imaging of brain tumors. Magn Reson Med 50:1120–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu B, Warnock G, Zaiss M et al (2016) An overview of CEST MRI for non-MR physicists. An overview of CEST MRI for non-MR physicists. EJNMMI Phys 3:19Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi Y, Ahn S, Lee SK et al (2017) Amide proton transfer imaging to discriminate between low- and high-grade gliomas: added value to apparent diffusion coefficient and relative cerebral blood volume. Eur Radiol 27:3181–3189PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou J, Zhu H, Lim M et al (2013) Three-dimensional amide proton transfer MR imaging of gliomas: initial experience and comparison with gadolinium enhancement. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:1119–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhou J, Tryggestad E, Wen Z et al (2011) Differentiation between glioma and radiation necrosis using molecular magnetic resonance imaging of endogenous proteins and peptides. Nat Med 17:130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang M, Hong X, Chang CF et al (2015) Simultaneous detection and separation of hyperacute intracerebral hemorrhage and cerebral ischemia using amide proton transfer MRI. Magn Reson Med 74:42–50PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park JE, Kim HS, Park KJ, Kim SJ, Kim JH, Smith SA (2016) Pre- and posttreatment glioma: comparison of amide proton transfer imaging with MR spectroscopy for biomarkers of tumor proliferation. Radiology 278:514–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park JE, Lee JY, Kim HS et al (2018) Amide proton transfer imaging seems to provide higher diagnostic performance in post-treatment high-grade gliomas than methionine positron emission tomography. Eur Radiol 28:3285–3295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Togao O, Hiwatashi A, Keupp J et al (2015) Scan–rescan reproducibility of parallel transmission based amide proton transfer imaging of brain tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1346–1353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun PZ, Benner T, Kumar A, Sorensen AG (2008) Investigation of optimizing and translating pH-sensitive pulsed-chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging to a 3T clinical scanner. Magn Reson Med 60:834–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li S, Dardzinski BJ, Collins CM, Yang QX , Smith MB (1996) Three-dimensional mapping of the static magnetic field inside the human head. Magn Reson Med 36:705–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG et al (2015) Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology 277:813–825PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD et al (2007) The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 114:97–109PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G et al (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131:803–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Togao O, Yoshiura T, Keupp J et al (2012) Effect of saturation pulse length on parallel transmission based amide proton transfer (APT) imaging of different brain tumor types. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med 20:744Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keupp J, Baltes C, Harvey PR, van den Brink J (2011) Parallel RF transmission based MRI technique for highly sensitive detection of amide proton transfer in the human brain at 3T. Proc Int Soc Magn Reson Med 19:710Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eggers H, Brendel B, Duijndam A, Herigault G (2011) Dual-echo Dixon imaging with flexible choice of echo times. Magn Reson Med 65:96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xiang QS (2006) Two-point water-fat imaging with partially-opposed-phase (POP) acquisition: an asymmetric Dixon method. Magn Reson Med 56:572–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edwards S, Gong Q, Liu C et al (1999) Infratentorial atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging and disability in multiple sclerosis. Brain 122:291–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guivel-Scharen V, Sinnwell T, Wolff S, Balaban RS (1998) Detection of proton chemical exchange between metabolites and water in biological tissues. J Magn Reson 133:36–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park JE, Han K, Sung YS et al (2017) Selection and reporting of statistical methods to assess reliability of a diagnostic test: conformity to recommended methods in a peer-reviewed journal. Korean J Radiol 18:888–897PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barnhart HX, Barboriak DP (2009) Applications of the repeatability of quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical analysis of repeat data sets. Transl Oncol 2:231–235PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sappakitkamjorn J, Niwitpong S-A (2013) Confidence intervals for the coefficients of variation with bounded parameters. Int J Math Comput Sci Eng 7:198–203Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hallgren KA (2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 8:23PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jiang S, Zou T, Eberhart CG et al (2017) Predicting IDH mutation status in grade II gliomas using amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) MRI. Magn Reson Med 78:1100–1109PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu H, Lou H, Zou T et al (2017) Applying protein-based amide proton transfer MR imaging to distinguish solitary brain metastases from glioblastoma. Eur Radiol 27:4516–4524PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhao X, Wen Z, Huang F, et al (2011) Saturation power dependence of amide proton transfer image contrasts in human brain tumors and strokes at 3 T. Magn Reson Med 66(4):1033–1041PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park J, Kim H, Jung S et al (2017) Depiction of acute stroke using 3-tesla clinical amide proton transfer imaging: saturation time optimization using an in vivo rat stroke model, and a preliminary study in human. Investig Magn Reson Imaging 21:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhou J, Blakeley JO, Hua J et al (2008) Practical data acquisition method for human brain tumor amide proton transfer (APT) imaging. Magn Reson Med 60:842–849PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacobs MA, Horská A, Van Zijl PC, Barker PB (2001) Quantitative proton MR spectroscopic imaging of normal human cerebellum and brain stem. Magn Reson Med 46:699–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmidt H, Schwenzer NF, Gatidis S et al (2016) Systematic evaluation of amide proton chemical exchange saturation transfer at 3 T: effects of protein concentration, pH, and acquisition parameters. Invest Radiol 51:635–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Research Institute of RadiologyUniversity of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations