Advertisement

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

Research ArticleBrain

Proton MR Spectroscopy in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease: Comparison of 1.5 and 3 T

Kejal Kantarci, Glenn Reynolds, Ronald C. Petersen, Bradley F. Boeve, David S. Knopman, Steven D. Edland, Glenn E. Smith, Robert J. Ivnik, Eric G. Tangalos and Clifford R. Jack
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2003, 24 (5) 843-849;

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Fig 1.
    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.

  • Fig 2.
    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).

  • Fig 3.
    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)

Tables

  • TABLE 1:

    Demographic and clinical data for the 81 subjects

    CharacteristicCognitively Normal (n = 41)MCI (n = 20)AD (n = 20)
    Age (y)80 (61–97)80 (64–91)79 (66–94)
    M/F*17/2414/67/13
    Years of education12 (8–20)13 (7–20)15 (12–20)
    MMSE score*29 (26–30)29 (25–30)24 (17–29)
    DRS score*140 (130–143)134 (123–143)123 (96–135)

    • Note.—Except for M/F, data are the median. Numbers in parentheses are the range.

    • * Between-group differences were statistically significant (P < .05)

  • TABLE 2:

    Coefficients of variation (%) of metabolite ratios obtained from the phantom and from the posterior cingulate voxel in the cognitively normal elderly subjects, at 1.5 and 3 T

    RatioTE (ms)Phantom (n = 81)Posterior Cingulate Voxel (n = 41)
    1.5 T3 T1.5 T3 T
    NAA/Cr135––79
    Cho/Cr135––1213
    NAA/Cr301.4*1.956
    Cho/Cr301.41.310†14
    MI/Cr302.8*5.11114
    NAA/MI303.6*5.51314
    Glu + Gln/Cr30–––16
    Glu/Cr30–5.3–15

    • * P < .01 for comparison of coefficients of variation from the phantom at 1.5 with those at 3 T by using a two-sample t statistic approximation.

    • † P < .05 for comparison of coefficients of variation from the posterior cingulate voxel at 1.5 with those at 3 T by using a two-sample t statistic approximation.

  • TABLE 3:

    Average FWHM of the unsuppressed water peak at 1.5 and 3 T

    Field StrengthPhantom, TE = 30 ms (n = 37)PC Voxel, TE = 135 ms (n = 37)PC Voxel, TE = 30 ms (n = 37)
    1.5 T1.992.944.07
    3 T4.237.979.63

    • Note.-Data are in hertz. PC indicates posterior cingulate.

  • TABLE 4:

    Metabolite ratios from the posterior cingulate voxel in the 81 subjects, at 1.5 and 3 T

    RatioTE1.5 T3 T
    Cognitively Normal (n = 41)MCI (n = 20)AD (n = 20)Cognitively Normal (n = 41)MCI (n = 20)AD (n = 20)
    NAA/Cr1351.77 (1.55–2.10)1.69* (1.45–1.80)1.65† (1.37–1.9)1.53 (1.22–2.15)1.49 (1.32–1.81)1.47‡ (1.13–1.61)
    Cho/Cr1350.81 (0.53–0.99)0.87 (0.72–0.98)0.86‡ (0.72–1.06)0.70 (0.56–1.01)0.68 (0.53–0.83)0.66 (0.55–0.81)
    NAA/Cr301.57 (1.39–1.71)1.51 (1.35–1.66)1.44† (1.22–1.60)1.50 (1.27–1.72)1.45 (1.31–2.27)1.40‡ (1.23–1.81)
    Cho/Cr300.64 (0.56–0.77)0.68‡ (0.58–0.80)0.68‡ (0.56–0.84)0.63 (0.48–0.95)0.62 (0.53–0.81)0.65 (0.49–0.79)
    MI/Cr300.66 (0.50–0.82)0.70‡ (0.59–0.78)0.74* (0.51–0.85)0.52 (0.38–0.66)0.51 (0.36–0.66)0.56‡ (0.36–0.73)
    NAA/MI302.40 (1.88–3.26)2.22* (1.96–2.51)2.01† (1.48–2.84)2.88 (2.29–3.95)2.83 (2.02–4.19)2.63‡ (1.71–3.89)
    Glu + Gln/Cr30–––2.03 (1.46–2.62)1.91 (1.45–2.28)1.84 (1.34–2.46)

    • Note.—Data are the median. Numbers in parentheses are the range.

    • * P < .01 for comparison of ratios in patients with MCI or AD with those of cognitively normal subjects by using the rank sum test.

    • † P < .001 for comparison of ratios in patients with MCI or AD with those of cognitively normal subjects by using the rank sum test.

    • ‡ P < .05 for comparison of ratios in patients with MCI or AD with those of cognitively normal subjects by using the rank sum test.

Back to top

In this issue

Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Cite this article
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Bookmark this article
Proton MR Spectroscopy in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease: Comparison of 1.5 and 3 T
Kejal Kantarci, Glenn Reynolds, Ronald C. Petersen, Bradley F. Boeve, David S. Knopman, Steven D. Edland, Glenn E. Smith, Robert J. Ivnik, Eric G. Tangalos, Clifford R. Jack
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2003, 24 (5) 843-849;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement