Objectives To optimize glucose chemical exchange saturation transfer (glucoCEST) MRI acquisition parameters for bladder imaging at 3.0 T through phantom experiments, and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility as a noninvasive molecular imaging biomarker for characterizing altered tumor glucose metabolism and detecting bladder cancer (BCa) in a pilot clinical cohort. Methods D-glucose phantoms with varying concentrations (6.5-100 mmol/L) and pH levels (6.4, 7.4, 8.4) were scanned using a 3.0 T scanner to systematically characterize CEST signal dependencies. Acquisition parameters were optimized by varying saturation amplitude (B 1,rms =0.5-2 µT), saturation duration (T sat =1-3 s), and number of excitations (NEX = 1-2). The phantom-optimized single-shot fast spin echo CEST protocol was then prospectively applied to 20 healthy volunteers and 20 histopathologically confirmed BCa patients. The B 0 -corrected magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry (MTR asym ) at 1.2 ppm was measured within regions of interest (ROIs) delineated on bladder tumors, normal bladder walls of patients, and healthy control walls. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post-hoc with Bonferroni correction. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Phantom experiments showed that MTR asym (1.2 ppm) increased with glucose concentration but decreased with increasing pH. A saturation power of 2.0 µT and duration of 1 s provided an optimal CEST signal with an acceptable scan time when NEX = 1. Bladder tumors demonstrated significantly higher MTR asym values (2.25% [3.18%]) than bladder walls in healthy volunteers (-4.30% [0.68%]) and normal bladder walls in BCa patients (-3.98% [0.73%]). No significant difference was observed between healthy volunteers and normal bladder walls in BCa patients ( P = 0.231). Conclusions GlucoCEST MRI at 3.0 T is feasible for detecting BCa and is a potential noninvasive imaging biomarker of tumor glucose metabolism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: