Proton MR Spectroscopy in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease: Comparison of 1.5 and 3 T
Kejal Kantarcia,
Glenn Reynoldsg,
Ronald C. Petersenb,c,
Bradley F. Boeveb,
David S. Knopmanb,
Steven D. Edlandd,
Glenn E. Smithe,
Robert J. Ivnike,
Eric G. Tangalosf and
Clifford R. Jack, Jra
a Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Milwaukee, WI
b Department of Neurology, Milwaukee, WI
c Department of Health Sciences Research, Milwaukee, WI
d Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Milwaukee, WI
e Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Milwaukee, WI
f Department of Internal Medicine, Milwaukee, WI
g Department of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
View larger version (141K):
[in a new window]
|
FIG 1. A, Midsagittal, B, axial, and C, coronal T1-weighted images (700/14) show the location of the 8-cm3 posterior cingulate 1H MR spectroscopy voxel.
| |
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
|
FIG 2. Examples of 1H MR spectra (2000/30) obtained at 3 T (top) and at 1.5 T (bottom) from the posterior cingulate voxel. Glu + Gln peak resonances are better resolved at 3 T than at 1.5 T. The resonance at 3.4 ppm that is more prominent in the 1.5- than in the 3-T spectra is scyllo-inositol and/or taurine (3).
| |
View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
|
FIG 3. ROC curves comparing the NAA/MI ratios to differentiate patients with AD from cognitively normal elderly subjects, at 1.5 T (dotted line) and at 3 T (straight line). There is no significant difference between the areas under the two ROC curves (P = .1)
| |
