Dynamic glucose-enhanced (DGE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown potential for tumor imaging using D-glucose as a biodegradable contrast agent. The DGE signal change is small at 3 T (around 1%) and accurate detection is hampered by motion. The intravenous D-glucose injection is associated with transient side effects that can indirectly generate subject movements. In this study, the aim was to study DGE arterial input functions (AIFs) in healthy volunteers at 3 T for different scanning protocols, as a step towards making the glucose chemical exchange saturation transfer (glucoCEST) protocol more robust. Two different infusion durations (1.5 and 4.0 min) and saturation frequency offsets (1.2 and 2.0 ppm) were used. The effect of subject motion on the DGE signal was studied by using motion estimates retrieved from standard retrospective motion correction to create pseudo-DGE maps, where the apparent DGE signal changes were entirely caused by motion. Furthermore, the DGE AIFs were compared with venous blood glucose levels. A significant difference (p = 0.03) between arterial baseline and postinfusion DGE signal was found after Dglucose infusion. The results indicate that the measured DGE AIF signal change depends on both motion and blood glucose concentration change, emphasizing the need for sufficient motion correction in glucoCEST imaging. Finally, we conclude that a longer infusion duration (e.g. 3-4 min) should preferably be used in glucoCEST

Dynamic glucose-enhanced (DGE) MRI relates to a group of exchange-based MRI techniques where the uptake of glucose analogues is studied dynamically. However, motion artifacts can be mistaken for true DGE effects, while motion correction may alter true signal effects. The aim was to design a numerical human brain phantom to simulate a realistic DGE MRI protocol at 3T that can be used to assess the influence of head movement on the signal before and after retrospective motion correction.Methods: MPRAGE data from a tumor patient were used to simulate dynamic Z-spectra under the influence of motion. The DGE responses for different tissue types were simulated, creating a ground truth. Rigid head movement patterns were applied as well as physiological dilatation and pulsation of the lateral ventricles and head-motion-induced B 0 -changes in presence of first-order shimming. The effect of retrospective motion correction was evaluated.Results: Motion artifacts similar to those previously reported for in vivo DGE data could be reproduced. Head movement of 1 mm translation and 1.5 degrees rotation led to a pseudo-DGE effect on the order of 1% signal change. B 0 effects due to head motion altered DGE changes due to a shift in the water saturation spectrum. Pseudo DGE effects were partly reduced or enhanced by rigid motion correction depending on tissue location. Conclusion:DGE MRI studies can be corrupted by motion artifacts. Designing post-processing methods using retrospective motion correction including B 0 correction will be crucial for clinical implementation. The proposed phantom should be useful for evaluation and optimization of such techniques.