Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T20:41:47.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Spectral analysis methods, quantitation, and common artifacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Peter B. Barker
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Alberto Bizzi
Affiliation:
Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan
Nicola De Stefano
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi, Siena
Rao Gullapalli
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Doris D. M. Lin
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Get access

Summary

Key points

  • Correct post-processing and quantitation are key aspects of in vivo MRS.

  • Filtering, phase-correction and baseline correction improve MRS data.

  • Peak area estimation can be done using parametric or non-parametric routines in either the time domain or frequency domains.

  • “LCModel” software is becoming widely used and accepted, particularly for single-voxel MRS data.

  • MRSI processing requires additional steps; k-space filtering and other manipulations can improve MRSI data quality.

  • A variety of strategies are available for quantitation, based on either internal or external reference standards, or phantom replacement methodology.

  • Quantitation routines should take into account voxel composition, particularly the amount of CSF partial volume present.

  • MRS is sensitive to field inhomogeneity and other artifacts.

Introduction

Methods for spectral analysis and the quantitative analysis of spectral data are arguably as important as the techniques used to collect the data; the use of incorrect analysis methods can lead to systematic errors or misinterpretation of spectra. In general, the ultimate goal of spectral analysis is to determine the concentrations of the compounds present in the spectra. In MRS, the area under the spectral peak is proportional to the metabolite concentration; however, determining the proportionality constant can be challenging. In addition, peak area measurements in in-vivo spectroscopy are complicated by resonance overlap, baseline distortions, and lineshapes that often only poorly approximate conventional models such as Gaussian or Lorentzian functions. Therefore, quantitative analysis of in vivo MRS data is challenging. This chapter reviews basic spectral processing techniques, methods for determining peak areas, and strategies for calculating metabolite concentrations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Clinical MR Spectroscopy
Techniques and Applications
, pp. 34 - 50
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ordidge, RJ, Cresshull, ID. The correction of transient B0 field shifts following the application of pulsed gradients by phase correction in the time domain. J Magn Reson Imaging 1986; 69: 151–5.Google Scholar
Graaf, AA, Dijk, JE, Bovee, WM. QUALITY: quantification improvement by converting lineshapes to the Lorentzian type. Magn Reson Med 1990; 13: 343–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marion, D, Ikura, M, Bax, A. Improved solvent suppression in one- and two-dimensional NMR spectra by convolution of time-domain data. J Magn Reson 1989; 84: 425–30.Google Scholar
Lowe, MJ, Sorenson, JA. Spatially filtering functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Magn Reson Med 1997; 37: 723–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derby, K, Hawryszko, C, Tropp, J. Baseline deconvolution, phase correction, and signal quantification in Fourier localized spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 1989; 12: 235–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soher, BJ, Young, K, Govindaraju, V, Maudsley, AA. Automated spectral analysis III: application to in vivo proton MR spectroscopy and spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 1998; 40: 822–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soher, BJ, Zijl, PC, Duyn, JH, Barker, PB. Quantitative proton MR spectroscopic imaging of the human brain. Magn Reson Med 1996; 35:356–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mierisova, S, Ala-Korpela, M. MR spectroscopy quantitation: a review of frequency domain methods. NMR Biomed 2001; 14: 247–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, I, Bruce, SD, Higinbotham, J, MacLullich, A, Wardlaw, JM, Ferguson, KJ, et al. Choice of spectroscopic lineshape model affects metabolite peak areas and area ratios. Magn Reson Med 2000; 44: 646–9.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soher, BJ, Maudsley, AA. Evaluation of variable line-shape models and prior information in automated 1H spectroscopic imaging analysis. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52: 1246–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provencher, SW. Estimation of metabolite concentrations from localized in vivo proton NMR spectra. Magn Reson Med 1993;30: 672–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beer, R, Boogaart, AOrmondt, D, Pijnappel, WW, Hollander, JA, Marien, AJ, et al. Application of time-domain fitting in the quantification of in vivo 1H spectroscopic imaging data sets. NMR Biomed 1992; 5: 171–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, PB, Soher, BJ, Blackband, SJ, Chatham, JC, Mathews, VP, Bryan, RN. Quantitation of proton NMR spectra of the human brain using tissue water as an internal concentration reference. NMR Biomed 1993; 6: 89–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, R. A Handbook of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Harlow, England: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1987.Google Scholar
Hetherington, HP, Mason, GF, Pan, JW, Ponder, SL, Vaughan, JT, Twieg, DB, et al. Evaluation of cerebral gray and white matter metabolite differences by spectroscopic imaging at 4.1 T. Magn Reson Med 1994; 32: 565–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockler, S, Holzbach, U, Hanefeld, F, Marquardt, I, Helms, G, Requart, M, et al. Creatine deficiency in the brain: a new, treatable inborn error of metabolism. Pediatr Res 1994; 36: 409–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thulborn, KR, Ackerman, JJH. Absolute molar concentrations by NMR in inhomogeneous B1. A scheme for analysis of in vivo metabolites. J Magn Reson 1983; 55: 357–71.Google Scholar
Christiansen, P, Henriksen, O, Stubgaard, M, Gideon, P, Larsson, HB. In vivo quantification of brain metabolites by 1H-MRS using water as an internal standard. Magn Reson Imaging 1993; 11: 107–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alger, JR, Symko, SC, Bizzi, A, Posse, S, DesPres, DJ, Armstrong, MR. Absolute quantitation of short TE brain 1H-MR spectra and spectroscopic imaging data. J Comput Ass Topogr 1993; 17:191–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ordidge, RJ, Cresshull, ID. The correction of transient B0 field shifts following the application of pulsed gradients by phase correction in the time domain. J Magn Reson 1986; 69: 151–5.Google Scholar
Webb, PG, Sailasuta, N, Kohler, SJ, Raidy, T, Moats, RA, Hurd, RE. Automated single-voxel proton MRS: technical development and multisite verification. Magn Reson Med 1994; 31: 365–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soher, BJ, Hurd, RE, Sailasuta, N, Barker, PB. Quantitation of automated single-voxel proton MRS using cerebral water as an internal reference. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 335–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathews, VP, Barker, PB, Blackband, SJ, Chatham, JC, Bryan, RN. Cerebral metabolites in patients with acute and subacute strokes: concentrations determined by quantitative proton MR spectroscopy. Am J Radiol 1995; 165: 633–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Ernst, T, Kreis, R, Ross, B. Absolute quantitation of water and metabolites in the human brain. I. Compartments and water. J Magn Reson B 1993; 102: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horská, A, Calhoun, VD, Bradshaw, DH, Barker, PB. Rapid method for correction of CSF partial volume in quantitative proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 2002; 48: 555–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horska, A, Jacobs, MA, Calhoun, V, Arslanoglu, A, Barker, PB. A fast method for image segmentation: application to quantitative proton MRSI at 3 Tesla. ISMRM, 11th Scientific Meeting and Exhibition; Toronto, Canada; 2003.Google Scholar
Ernst, T, Chang, L. Elimination of artifacts in short echo time H MR spectroscopy of the frontal lobe. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 462–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurd, R, Sailasuta, N. Elimination of artifacts in short echo proton spectroscopy. 5th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine;Vancouver, BC, Canada; 1997. p. 1453.Google Scholar
Murdoch, JM. Still Iterating … and iterating … to solve pulse design problems. International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) 10th Annual Meeting; Honolulu, Hawai'i; 2002. p. 923.Google Scholar
Edden, RA, Barker, PB. Spatial effects in the detection of gamma-aminobutyric acid: improved sensitivity at high fields using inner volume saturation. Magn Reson Med 2007; 58: 1276–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edden, RA, Schar, M, Hillis, AE, Barker, PB. Optimized detection of lactate at high fields using inner volume saturation. Magn Reson Med 2006; 56: 912–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tran, TK, Vigneron, DB, Sailasuta, N, Tropp, J, Roux, P, Kurhanewicz, J, et al. Very selective suppression pulses for clinical MRSI studies of brain and prostate cancer. Magn Reson Med 2000; 43: 23–33.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, AP, Ross, BD. Short-echo time proton MR spectroscopy in the presence of gadolinium. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001; 25: 705–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sijens, PE, Oudkerk, M, Dijk, P, Levendag, PC, Vecht, CJ. 1H MR spectroscopy monitoring of changes in choline peak area and line shape after Gd-contrast administration. Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 16: 1273–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sijens, PE, Bent, MJ, Nowak, PJ, Dijk, P, Oudkerk, M. 1H chemical shift imaging reveals loss of brain tumor choline signal after administration of Gd-contrast. Magn Reson Med 1997; 37: 222–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windham, JP, Abd-Allah, MA, Reimann, DA, Froelich, JW, Haggar, AM. Eigenimage filtering in MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1988; 12: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreis, R. Issues of spectral quality in clinical 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy and a gallery of artifacts. NMR Biomed 2004; 17: 361–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×