English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Possible artifacts in dynamic CEST MRI due to motion and field alterations

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons214560

Zaiss,  M
Department High-Field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons216025

Herz,  K
Department High-Field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons215996

Deshmane,  A
Department High-Field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons84187

Scheffler,  K
Department High-Field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Zaiss, M., Herz, K., Deshmane, A., Kim, M., Golay, X., Lindig, T., et al. (2019). Possible artifacts in dynamic CEST MRI due to motion and field alterations. Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 298, 16-22. doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2018.11.002.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0002-97A0-E
Abstract
Purpose Dynamic CEST studies such as dynamic glucose enhanced imaging, have gained a lot of attention recently. The expected CEST effects after injection are rather small in tissue especially at clinical field strengths (0.5–2%). Small movements during the dynamic CEST measurement together with a subtraction-based evaluation can lead to pseudo CEST effects of the same order of magnitude. These artifacts are studied herein. Methods A brain tumor patient 3D-CEST baseline scan without glucose injection performed at 3 T is used to generate a virtual dynamic measurement introducing different kinds of simulated motion and B0 shifts. Results Minor motion (0.6 mm translations) and B0 artifacts (7 Hz shift) can lead to pseudo effects in the order of 1% in dynamic CEST imaging. Especially around tissue interfaces such as CSF borders or tumor affected areas, the pseudo effect patterns are non-intuitive and can be mistaken as dynamic agent uptake. Conclusion Correction or mitigation for small motions is crucial for dynamic CEST imaging, especially in subjects with lesions. Concomitant B0 alterations can as well induce pseudo CEST effects at 3 T.