Preliminary demonstration of in vivo quasi‐steady‐state CEST postprocessing—Correction of saturation time and relaxation delay for robust quantification of tumor MT and APT effects

• Published in: Magnetic resonance in medicine 2021-08, Vol.86 (2), p.943-953
• Main Authors: Zhang, Xiao‐Yong, Zhai, Yuting, Jin, Ziyi, Li, Cong, Sun, Phillip Zhe, Wu, Yin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; amide proton transfer; Animal research; chemical exchange saturation transfer; Computer simulation; Dependence; Glioma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetization; magnetization transfer; Mathematical models; Microenvironments; Protons; quasi‐steady‐state CEST; Robustness (mathematics); Saturation; Tissues; Tumors
• ISSN: 0740-3194; 1522-2594
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28764

Purpose Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MRI is versatile for measuring the dilute labile protons and microenvironment properties. However, the use of insufficiently long RF saturation duration (Ts) and relaxation delay (Td) may underestimate the CEST measurement. This study proposed a quasi‐steady‐state (QUASS) CEST analysis for robust CEST quantification. Methods The CEST signal evolution was modeled as a function of the longitudinal relaxation rate during Td and spin‐lock relaxation rate during Ts, from which the QUASS‐CEST effect is derived. Numerical simulation and in vivo rat glioma MRI experiments were conducted at 11.7 T to compare the apparent and QUASS‐CEST results obtained under different Ts/Td of 2 seconds/2 seconds and 4 seconds/4 seconds. Magnetization transfer and amide proton transfer effects were resolved using a multipool Lorentzian fitting and evaluated in contralateral normal tissue and tumor regions. Results The simulation showed the dependence of the apparent CEST effect on Ts and Td, and such reliance was mitigated with the QUASS algorithm. Animal experiment results showed that the apparent magnetization transfer and amide proton transfer effects and their contrast between contralateral normal tissue and tumor regions increased substantially with Ts and Td. In comparison, the QUASS magnetization transfer and amide proton transfer effects and their difference between contralateral normal tissue and tumor exhibited little dependence on Ts and Td. In addition, the apparent magnetization transfer and amide proton transfer were significantly smaller than the corresponding QUASS indices (P < .05). Conclusion The QUASS‐CEST algorithm enables robust CEST quantification and offers a straightforward approach to standardize CEST experiments.