Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 1203–1210 | Cite as

Amid proton transfer (APT) and magnetization transfer (MT) MRI contrasts provide complimentary assessment of brain tumors similarly to proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI)

  • Changliang Su
  • Lingyun Zhao
  • Shihui Li
  • Jingjing Jiang
  • Kejia Cai
  • Jingjing Shi
  • Yihao Yao
  • Qilin Ao
  • Guiling Zhang
  • Nanxi Shen
  • Shan Hu
  • Jiaxuan Zhang
  • Yuanyuan Qin
  • Wenzhen ZhuEmail author
Oncology

Abstract

Objectives

Using MRSI as comparison, we aimed to explore the difference between amide proton transfer (APT) MRI and conventional semi-solid magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) MRI, and to investigate if molecular APT and structural MTR can provide complimentary information in assessing brain tumors.

Methods

Seventeen brain tumor patients and 17 age- and gender-matched volunteers were included and scanned with anatomical MRI, APT and MT-weighted MRI, and MRSI. Multi-voxel choline (Cho) and N-acetylaspartic acid (NAA) signals were quantified from MRSI and compared with MTR and MTRasym(3.5ppm) contrasts averaged from corresponding voxels. Correlations between contrasts were explored voxel-by-voxel by pooling values from all voxels into Pearson’s correlation analysis. Differences in correlation coefficients were tested with the Z-test (set at p<0.05).

Results

APT and MT provide good contrast and quantitative parameters in tumor imaging, as do the metabolite (Cho and NAA) maps. MTRasym(3.5ppm) significantly correlated with MTR (R=-0.61, p<0.0001), Cho (R=0.568, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=-0.619, p<0.0001) in tumors, and MTR also significantly correlated with Cho (R=-0.346, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=0.624, p<0.0001). In healthy volunteers, MTRasym(3.5ppm) was non-significantly correlated with MTR (R=-0.049, p=0.239), Cho (R=0.030, p=0.478) and NAA (R=-0.083, p=0.046). Significant correlations were found among MTR with Cho (R=0.199, p<0.0001) and NAA (R=0.263, p<0.0001) in the group of healthy volunteers with lower correlation R values than those in tumor patients.

Conclusions

APT and MT could provide independent and supplementary information for the comprehensive assessment of molecular and structural changes due to brain tumor cancerogenesis.

Key Points

• MTR asym(3.5ppm) positively correlated with Cho while negatively with NAA in tumors.

• MTR positively correlated with NAA while negatively with Cho in tumors.

• Combining APT/MT provides molecular and structural information similarly to MRSI.

Keywords

Amide proton transfer Magnetization transfer Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging Brain tumor 

Abbreviations

APT

Amide proton transfer

MRSI

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging

MT

Magnetization transfer

MTR

Conventional magnetization transfer ratio

MTRasym(3.5ppm)

Asymmetrical magnetization transfer ratio at 3.5 ppm

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Bing Wu from GE health for his generous help in data post-processing and advice on the manuscript. We also acknowledge Dr. Yang Fan from General Electric Company (China) for his generous contributions to manuscript revision.

Funding

This study has received funding by grants from the National Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China during the “12th Five-Year Plan” (ID: 2011BAI08B10) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81171308, No. 81570462, No. 81730049 and No. 81401389). This work is also partially supported by NIH NIBIB grant R21-EB023516-02 (Cai).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Wenzhen Zhu.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

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

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Prospective

• Observational

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Ramalho J, Ramalho M, AlObaidy M, Semelka RC (2016) Technical aspects of MRI signal change quantification after gadolinium-based contrast agents' administration. Magn Reson Imaging 34(10):1355–1358Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thieme ME, Leeuwenburgh MM, Valdehueza ZD et al (2014) Diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance of MRI in children with suspected appendicitis. Eur Radiol 24(3):630–637Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deo A, Fogel M, Cowper SE (2007) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a population study examining the relationship of disease development to gadolinium exposure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2(2):264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuno H, Jara H, Buch K, Qureshi MM, Chapman MN, Sakai O (2017) Global and regional brain assessment with quantitative MR imaging in patients with prior exposure to linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology 283(1):195–204Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanda T, Oba H, Toyoda K, Kitajima K, Furui S (2016) Brain gadolinium deposition after administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Jpn J Radiol 34(1):3–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Howe FA, Barton SJ, Cudlip SA et al (2003) Metabolic profiles of human brain tumors using quantitative in vivo 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 49(2):223–232Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howe FA, Opstad KS (2003) 1H MR spectroscopy of brain tumours and masses. NMR Biomed 16(3):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nelson SJ (2003) Multivoxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy of brain tumors. Mol Cancer Ther 2(5):497–507Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Okumura A, Takenaka K, Nishimura Y et al (1999) The characterization of human brain tumor using magnetization transfer technique in magnetic resonance imaging. Neurol Res 21(3):250–254Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Buchem MA, Steens SC, Vrooman HA et al (2001) Global estimation of myelination in the developing brain on the basis of magnetization transfer imaging: a preliminary study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22(4):762–766Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang H, Kang H, Zhao X et al (2016) Amide Proton Transfer (APT) MR imaging and Magnetization Transfer (MT) MR imaging of pediatric brain development. Eur Radiol 26(10):3368–3376Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurki T, Lundbom N, Kalimo H, Valtonen S (1995) MR classification of brain gliomas: value of magnetization transfer and conventional imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 13(4):501–511Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhou J, Lal B, Wilson DA, Laterra J, van Zijl PC (2003) Amide proton transfer (APT) contrast for imaging of brain tumors. Magn Reson Med 50(6):1120–1126Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Togao O, Yoshiura T, Keupp J et al (2014) Amide proton transfer imaging of adult diffuse gliomas: correlation with histopathological grades. Neuro Oncol 16(3):441–448Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ma B, Blakeley JO, Hong X et al (2016) Applying amide proton transfer-weighted MRI to distinguish pseudoprogression from true progression in malignant gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 44(2):456–462Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(2):514–523Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(5):1119–1128Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wen Z, Hu S, Huang F et al (2010) MR imaging of high-grade brain tumors using endogenous protein and peptide-based contrast. Neuroimage 51(2):616–622Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brada M (2001) Pathology and genetics of tumours of the nervous system. Br J Cancer 84(1):148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pui MH (2000) Magnetization transfer analysis of brain tumor, infection, and infarction. J Magn Reson Imaging 12(3):395–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurki T, Lundbom N, Komu M, Kormano M (1996) Tissue characterization of intracranial tumors by magnetization transfer and spin-lattice relaxation parameters in vivo. J Magn Reson Imaging 6(4):573–579Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zheng Y, Wang X, Zhao X (2016) Magnetization transfer and amide proton transfer MRI of neonatal brain development. Biomed Res Int 2016:3052723Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhou J, Yan K, Zhu H (2012) A simple model for understanding the origin of the amide proton transfer MRI signal in tissue. Appl Magn Reson 42(3):393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gass A, Barker GJ, Kidd D et al (1994) Correlation of magnetization transfer ratio with clinical disability in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 36(1):62–67Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Henkelman RM, Stanisz GJ, Graham SJ (2001) Magnetization transfer in MRI: a review. NMR Biomed 14(2):57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ceckler TL, Wolff SD, Yip V, Simon SA, Balaban RS (1992) Dynamic and chemical factors affecting water proton relaxation by macromolecules. J Magn Reson 98(3):637–645Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fralix TA, Ceckler TL, Wolff SD, Simon SA, Balaban RS (1991) Lipid bilayer and water proton magnetization transfer: effect of cholesterol. Magn Reson Med 18(1):214–223Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen JT, Collins DL, Atkins HL, Freedman MS, Arnold DL, Canadian MS/BMT Study Group (2008) Magnetization transfer ratio evolution with demyelination and remyelination in multiple sclerosis lesions. Ann Neurol 63(2):254–262Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sakata A, Fushimi Y, Okada T et al (2017) Diagnostic performance between contrast enhancement, proton MR spectroscopy, and amide proton transfer imaging in patients with brain tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 46(3):732–739Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Changliang Su
    • 1
  • Lingyun Zhao
    • 1
  • Shihui Li
    • 1
  • Jingjing Jiang
    • 1
  • Kejia Cai
    • 2
  • Jingjing Shi
    • 1
  • Yihao Yao
    • 1
  • Qilin Ao
    • 3
  • Guiling Zhang
    • 1
  • Nanxi Shen
    • 1
  • Shan Hu
    • 1
  • Jiaxuan Zhang
    • 1
  • Yuanyuan Qin
    • 1
  • Wenzhen Zhu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyHankouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.The Department of Radiology and Bioengineering, College of MedicineUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyHankouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations