Free‐breathing abdominal chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging using water presaturation and respiratory gating at 3.0T

• Published in: NMR in biomedicine Vol. 37; no. 8
• Main Authors: Chen, Zhensen, Liu, Chuyu, Wang, Yishi, Guo, Rui, Chen, Weibo, Wang, He, Song, Xiaolei
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.08.2024
• Subjects: Abdomen; Breathing; Coefficient of variation; Data acquisition; Gating; Image acquisition; Image quality; In vivo methods and tests; Modules; Performance evaluation; Respiration; Saturation; Target acquisition; Time synchronization
• DOI: 10.1002/nbm.5134
• ISSN: 0952-3480

Free‐breathing abdominal chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) has great potential for clinical application, but its technical implementation remains challenging. This study aimed to propose and evaluate a free‐breathing abdominal CEST sequence. The proposed sequence employed respiratory gating (ResGat) to synchronize the data acquisition with respiratory motion and performed a water presaturation module before the CEST saturation to abolish the influence of respiration‐induced repetition time variation. In vivo experiments were performed to compare different respiratory motion‐control strategies and B0 offset correction methods, and to evaluate the effectiveness and necessity of the quasi‐steady‐state (QUASS) approach for correcting the influence of the water presaturation module on CEST signal. ResGat with a target expiratory phase of 0.5 resulted in a higher structural similarity index and a lower coefficient of variation on consecutively acquired CEST S0 images than breath‐holding (BH) and respiratory triggering (all p < 0.05). B0 maps derived from the abdominal CEST dataset itself were more stable for B0 correction, compared with the separately acquired B0 maps by a dual‐echo time scan and B0 maps derived from the water saturation shift referencing approach. Compared with BH, ResGat yielded more homogeneous magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry maps at 3.5 ppm (standard deviation: 3.96% vs. 3.19%, p = 0.036) and a lower mean squared difference between scan and rescan (27.52‱ vs. 16.82‱, p = 0.004). The QUASS approach could correct the water presaturation‐induced CEST signal change, but its necessity for in vivo scanning needs further verification. The proposed free‐breathing abdominal CEST sequence using ResGat had an acquisition efficiency of approximately four times that using BH. In conclusion, the proposed free‐breathing abdominal CEST sequence using ResGat and water presaturation has a higher acquisition efficiency and image quality than abdominal CEST using BH.