Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
    • Author Policies
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
    • Author Policies
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
EditorialEDITORIAL

Higher Field Strength for Proton MR Spectroscopy

Oded Gonen
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2003, 24 (5) 781-782;
Oded Gonen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

MR imagers with magnetic fields (B0) greater than 1.5 T are offered by all major manufacturers. Although 4-, 6-, 7-, and even 8-T, whole-body instruments are currently operational, the most common high-B0 systems are the nearly 100 installed with 3-T magnets. The demand for bigger B0 systems has been driven almost exclusively by functional MR imaging (1); however, their proliferation and Food and Drug Administration approval for most MR systems raises the question of whether the associated cost and technical complications benefit other applications such as MR spectroscopy. Indeed, several comparisons were already reported on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and spectral resolution improvements realized from raising B0 from the ubiquitous 1.5 T to 3, 4, and 7 T (2–5); however, common to all were that 1) few (<10) healthy subjects were examined; therefore, 2) none evaluated capability to systematically identify or differentiate abnormal states; 3) none observed the theoretical gains (∝ B0) in either attribute; and 4) proton MR spectroscopy in the brain was used, which requires sequences of various echo times, fat, and water suppression.

In this issue of the AJNR, Kantarci et al tackle, for the first time, the first two above-referenced objectives. This was done with single-voxel proton MR spectroscopy in the posterior cingulate gyri in 20 subjects with mild cognitive impairment, a condition thought to precede Alzheimer disease; 20 with symptoms consistent with Alzheimer disease; and 41 age-matched control subjects. All 81 subjects underwent proton MR spectroscopy at 1.5 and 3 T. The metrics compared were ratios to creatine (Cr), a metabolite reflecting high-energy phosphate reserves in the cytosol of neurons and glial cells, of the neurotransmitters glutamine (Gln) and glutamate (Glu), and myo-inositol (MI), a marker of gliosis, obtained at short (30-millisecond) echo times; and N-acetylaspartate (NAA), a neuronal marker, and choline (Cho), a membrane turnover indicator, acquired at intermediate (135-millisecond) echo time. NAA/Cr and Cho/Cr, were also acquired and included in the analysis of the short-echo time experiment. The authors’ goal was to ascertain which metabolic characteristics, field strengths, and echo times were most appropriate to differentiate the three subgroups.

Eighty-one quality-control acquisitions on a brain-metabolite phantom, the “best-case scenario” taken at both field strengths, provided an early indication of findings: the coefficients of variations (CV) of the metabolite ratios (to Cr) were lower and less variable at 1.5 T. It is no surprise, therefore, that this trend was repeated in the 41 elderly control subjects; only the Cho/Cr ratios were statistically different. Because the CV = SD/mean, assuming the SD of the measurements is approximately the same at each field strength, the finding that CV at 3 T is not half that at 1.5 T indicates that the theoretical signal intensity gains were not approached. In fact, with an echo time of 30 milliseconds (ie, a sequence providing minimal T2 loss), the SNR of Cr at 3 T was only 23% better than that at 1.5 T, whereas the line width more than doubled.

At 1.5 T, metabolite ratios of moderately cognitively impaired patients fell, as expected, between the elderly control subjects and those with Alzheimer disease, an additional indication of the intermediate nature of this condition. Specifically, MI/Cr and Cho/Cr acquired at echo times of 30 milliseconds progressively and significantly (P < .05) higher in control subjects as compared with ratios acquired in subjects with moderate cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. The NAA/Cr acquired at an echo time of 135 milliseconds showed progressively lower NAA/Cr and NAA/MI differentiated moderately cognitively impaired subjects from those with Alzheimer disease. By contrast, at 3 T, no metabolite ratios differentiated control subjects from those with mild cognitive impairment, or the latter subjects from those with Alzheimer disease. Although a trend of decreasing (Glu+Gln)/Cr was observed in moderately cognitively impaired subjects and those with Alzheimer disease, and was most pronounced in the latter group, the decrease did not reach statistical significance even in this large cohort. Consequently, Kantarci et al conclude that, in light of the current technology, 3-T proton MR spectroscopy offers no diagnostic performance advantage over the venerable 1.5-T field strength when applied to differentiating pathologic metabolism in the elderly.

Two technical causes were identified for this shortfall: 1) shimming (only first order x, y, z was used at either field strength) and 2) the effective contraction of T2s with field strength. Indeed, the posterior cingulate gyri were probed instead of the hippocampus or entorhinal cortex because of the poorer B0 field homogeneity at the latter regions. Not discussed was the quantification by means of metabolite ratios rather than absolute metabolite concentrations. Although ratios benefit from cancellation of difficult to measure multiplicative factors, such as voxel partial CSF volume, instrumental gain, and interpersonal coil loading differences, their variation is the sum of individual components. Furthermore, ratios are also implicitly assumed to reflect the behavior of the numerator, because the denominator’s level (frequently Cr) is presumed to be constant. This assumption was recently criticized by Weiner et al (6), who argued that absolute Cr level variations, especially as a function of age, may have also contributed to the lack of differential correlation between ratios and clinical status.

Because the theoretical SNR gains from bigger B0s were already demonstrated for MR spectroscopy of other nuclei by the Minnesota group (7, 8), Kantarci et al assert that technical, not fundamental obstacles, impeded their achievements for proton MR spectroscopy. Therefore, it is left to academic hardware and technique developers to produce and to commercial manufacturers to bundle the solutions required to heed these requests from clinicians if big-B0 imagers are to advance beyond fMR imaging applications.

References

  1. ↵
    Thulborn KR. Why neuroradiologists should consider very-high-field magnets for clinical applications of functional magnetic resonance imaging.Top Magn Reson Imag 1999;10:1–2
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Bartha R, Drost DJ, Menon RS, Williamson PC. Comparison of the quantification precision of human short echo time (1)H spectroscopy at 1.5 and 4.0 Tesla.Magn Reson Med 2000;44:185–192
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. Barker PB, Hearshen DO, Boska MD. Single-voxel proton MRS of the human brain at 1.5 T and 3.0 T.Magn Reson Med 2001;45:765–769
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Gonen O, Gruber S, Li BSY, Mlynárik V, Moser E. Multivoxel 3D proton spectroscopy in the brain at 1.5 versus 3 Tesla: a signal-to-noise and resolution comparison.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1727–1731
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Vaughan JT, Garwood M, Collins CM, et al. 7T vs. 4T: RF power, homogeneity, and signal-to-noise comparison in head images.Magn Reson Med 2001;46:24–30
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    O’Neill J, Schuff N, Marks WJ, Jr, et al. Quantitative 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy and MRI of Parkinson’s diseaseMov Disord 2002;17:917–927
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Zhu XH, Merkle H, Kwag JH, et al. 17O relaxation time and NMR sensitivity of cerebral water and their field dependenceMagn Reson Med 2001;45:543–549
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Lei H, Zhu XH, Zhang XL, et al. In vivo 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy of human brain at 7 T: an initial experienceMagn Reson Med 2003;49:199–205
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 24 (5)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 24, Issue 5
1 May 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Higher Field Strength for Proton MR Spectroscopy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Higher Field Strength for Proton MR Spectroscopy
Oded Gonen
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2003, 24 (5) 781-782;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Higher Field Strength for Proton MR Spectroscopy
Oded Gonen
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2003, 24 (5) 781-782;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Realistic Productivity in Academic Neuroradiology: A National Survey of Neuroradiology Division Chiefs
  • The No Surprises Act: What Neuroradiologists Should Know
  • Call to Action: Women in Neuroradiology’s Group (WINNERS)—Is There a Need?
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire