Comparison of 3T versus 7T MRS in visualization of metabolic markers in HGGsa
| 3T | 7T | |
|---|---|---|
| SNR | Lower (–) | Higher (+) |
| Spatial resolution | Lower (–) | Higher (+) |
| Resolution of overlapping resonances (ie, PC vs GPC, Lac vs lipids, 2HG vs Glu, Gln, GABA, possibly Glu vs Gln) | Poorer (–) | Better (+) |
| Range of metabolites | Narrower (–) | Wider (+) |
| Uncertainty values of metabolite concentrations | Greater (–) | Smaller (+) |
| Differentiation of IDH1/IDH2 gliomas vs wild-type gliomas | Less specific (–) | More specific (+) |
| B0 inhomogeneity | Lower (+) | Higher (–) |
| B1 inhomogeneity | Lower (+) | Higher (–) |
| RF power deposition (SAR) | Lower (+) | Higher (–) |
| CSL errors | Less frequent (+) | More frequent (–) |
| Susceptibility artifacts | Less frequent (+) | More frequent (–) |
| T1 relaxation time | Shorter (+) | Longer (–) |
| T2 relaxation time | Longer (+) | Shorter (–) |
| RF transmit body coils | More accessible (+) | Inaccessible (–) |
| Metal hardware (ie, titanium plates placed during craniotomies) | Safe (+) | Contraindicated (–) |
Note:—CSL indicates chemical shift localization errors; (+), positive features; (–), negative features.
↵aThe assets and drawbacks of 7T MRS compared with 3T MRS are delineated.