Abstract
Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) is a relatively novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique with an image contrast designed for in vivo measurement of certain endogenous molecules with protons that are exchangeable with water protons, such as amide proton transfer commonly used for neuro-oncology applications. Recent technological advances have made it feasible to implement CEST on clinical grade scanners within practical acquisition times, creating new opportunities to integrate CEST in clinical workflow. In addition, the majority of CEST applications used in neuro-oncology are performed without the use gadolinium-based contrast agents which are another appealing feature of this technique. This review is written for clinicians involved in neuro-oncologic care (nonphysicists) as the target audience explaining what they need to know as CEST makes its way into practice. The purpose of this article is to (1) review the basic physics and technical principles of CEST MRI, and (2) review the practical applications of CEST in neuro-oncology.
Introduction
The basis of chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) was first described in 1963, 1 but it was not until 2000 when the results of the first CEST magnetic resonance (MR) experiment were published. 2 Since then, a significant number of preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the potential utility of CEST MR imaging (MRI), alongside major technical developments, which have rendered it clinically feasible. 3
The main advantage of CEST is its ability to measure in vivo metabolites of interest that may have low concentrations and can alter during different disease processes. Although some CEST applications use exogenous contrast agents4,5 and represent very relevant applications of CEST, many CEST applications in neuro-oncologic imaging do not require exogenous contrast agents such as gadolinium-based contrast agents.
Owing to higher spatial resolution and improved sensitivity to certain low-concentration metabolites compared to proton MR spectroscopy (MRS) methods, 6 there has been a dramatic increase in new and emerging CEST methods in the recent decade and growing clinical translation of these methods, particularly for neuro-oncological applications. 3 The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview that is accessible to a clinical neuro-oncological audience and to briefly summarize recent research in areas of unmet need in neuro-oncology.
Basic Physics of CEST
Chemical Shift
Hydrogen nuclei (or simply, “protons”) bonded to metabolites have a different precession frequency than those protons in water molecules, because of changes in the local magnetic field due to electron shielding. This phenomenon, referred to as chemical shift (typically defined in parts per million (ppm) or in Hertz, both relative to water in the case of CEST) is what enables techniques such as MRS and CEST to differentiate the signals coming from protons of different metabolites.
Chemical Exchange
CEST imaging also relies on another intrinsic molecular phenomena called chemical exchange, whereby certain protons (eg, within metabolites) can physically switch places with another proton (eg, from nearby water molecules). Exchange is always happening and can occur with rates as high as hundreds or thousands of times per second. Using standard MRI methods, it can be difficult (if not impossible) to directly measure the signal from metabolites due to very low concentrations. However, the continuous exchange of protons with those of water molecules will thereby influence the water signal, which is detectable by standard MRI methods, making it possible to indirectly detect the metabolites.
The first step of a CEST experiment is to use a long radiofrequency (RF) saturation pulse, or pulse train (on the order of seconds), applied at the resonance frequency of protons in the metabolite of interest to “saturate” them. The saturated protons will undergo chemical exchange (ie, physically switch places) with nonsaturated water protons. Immediately following this exchange, the MRI signal detected at the water frequency will decrease, due to the presence of protons that are already saturated (Figure 1). The difference in signal strength with and without the saturation pulse provides an indirect measure of the concentration the chemical group of interest, which could include amide, amine, guanidinium, or hydroxyl groups.

Schematic representation of chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST): (A-D) Diagrams of the metabolite of interest containing an amide group are shown with surrounding water molecules, for each step in the CEST saturation and exchange process. The water signal level corresponding to each subfigure is shown below each panel. (A) Before saturation. (B) Radiofrequency saturation pulse is applied at a frequency offset of 3.5 ppm relative to water to saturate the proton in the amide group. (C) The saturated proton in the amide group is exchanged with the unsaturated water protons. (D) A continuous exchange of saturated protons leads to a measurable decrease in signal from water.
With sufficient time of RF saturation, a saturation steady state can be achieved providing maximal CEST contrast for the given pulse train. However, reaching a steady state is not always feasible as the duration of the RF pulse is limited by acquisition time, hardware constraints and specific absorption rate (SAR) limitations. As a result, the CEST contrast depends on numerous factors including the concentration of the metabolite of interest, efficiency of saturation, and exchange rate, which itself is dependent on both temperature and pH. 7
Saturation pulse amplitudes and application duration are important factors for CEST imaging.8,9 Lower pulse amplitudes and longer durations (≥1 s) are used to select chemical groups with slower exchange rate and higher amplitudes and shorter durations for groups with faster exchange rate. 10 The optimal amplitude also depends on the static field strength (B0). The consensus for amide proton transfer (APT) weighted brain imaging at 3T is 2 µT for 2 s. 3 For the amide CEST peak, which has slower exchange, 1 to 3 µT allows for efficient labelling. 3 For amine, guanidinium, and hydroxyl peaks, which have faster exchange, 2.9 to 12 µT have been used. 10
Measurement of CEST Signals
As stated above, the CEST contrast depends on the difference in the water signal between images acquired with and without RF saturation pulses at a specific frequency offset. However, there are several other mechanisms that affect the water signal during the saturation process. 11 The two main considerations that need to be taken into account when measuring the CEST signal are magnetization transfer contrast (MTC) and the direct effect of water saturation.
MTC has been used in neuroimaging for several decades and refers to the transfer of magnetization between water and immobile semisolid macromolecules or myelin lipid content such as galactocerebrosides. 12 These semisolid compounds have T2 relaxation times that are too short to be directly measured, while metabolites interrogated by CEST have much longer T2 relaxation times. The exchange rate of saturated protons with water protons is generally, but not always, faster in CEST (≈ 30-5500 Hz) 13 than in MTC (≈ 20-40 Hz). 14 Unlike CEST which is specific to the resonance frequency of protons in a particular metabolite, MTC occurs over a wide range of frequencies. As a result, MTC is less affected by the specific frequency offset. 7
The direct effect of water saturation relates to the undesired saturation of water protons when intending to saturate protons in a metabolite of interest. This happens because an RF pulse has a nonzero width, so although it is centered on the resonance frequency of the proton of interest, it will directly saturate some water molecule protons. Measuring water signal when saturating protons at the opposite frequency offset (−Δω) can eliminate this and is referred to as the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) asymmetry (MTRasym). Both the MTR and MTRasym are the most commonly used parameters in CEST are defined as the following:
To describe and analyze the frequency offset-dependent saturation effects in CEST, an understanding of two commonly used plots is essential (Figure 2). The first plot is the CEST Z-spectrum. The horizontal axis is the frequency offset with the resonance of water at 0 ppm and the vertical axis is the ratio of water signal with saturation (Ssat) to water signal without saturation (S0) at each given frequency offset. The CEST effects can be seen at the specific saturation frequency offsets of interest. As expected, the lowest point of the curve is at 0 ppm due to the direct saturation of water. The second plot (lower left corners in Figure 2) is the MTR asymmetry spectrum, where the signal at the opposite frequency offset has been subtracted to remove the effects of MTC and direct water saturation. However, a typical CEST experiment would collect images at only a few offsets, rather than measuring the entire Z-spectrum.

Simulated Z-spectra, with 2 different radiofrequency pulse amplitudes (B1) of 0.625 and 2.5 μT at 3T. The water resonance is defined to be 0 ppm. The amide (CEST) peak and center of the broad aliphatic (rNOE) peak are indicated. MTR asymmetry curve is shown in the left lower corner of each Z-spectra plot.
Another technique that has been used to remove some of the direct effect of water saturation is called Lorentzian difference (LD) analysis. This technique fits a Lorentzian function to the points on a Z-spectrum with minimal CEST effects to estimate the direct effect at all frequency offsets. Measurements typically fitted include those at high (|Δω| > 10 ppm 17 or ≥ 6 ppm18,19) and low (|Δω| < 1.75 ppm 19 or < 1 ppm17,18) frequency offsets. Then, the measured Z-spectrum values at the amide CEST frequency offset and its opposite (3.5 and −3.5 ppm, respectively) are subtracted from the Lorentzian values interpolated to those offsets to produce the LD signal. Furthermore, the measurements used to fit the Lorentzian likely have contributions from MTC unless the saturation amplitude is very low and therefore the fitted Lorentzian will only be an approximation of the signal from the direct effect.
Factors Affecting the CEST Signal
In order to accurately measure the CEST signal, the following need to be considered:
(a). (b). (c).

(A) Effect of B0 error as a shift to left (blue dotted line) or shift to right (orange dotted line) in the Z-spectrum and resultant underestimation of the APT signal. The solid red curve shows the corrected simulated spectrum. (B) Effect of B1 errors as a change in shape of the Z-spectrum. The corrected simulated spectrum is shown in red, the dotted curves demonstrate the effect of B1 errors, either 10% lower (blue) or 10% higher (orange) than prescribed, for a B1 of 0.625 μT. (C) Simulated MTR amide images of the brain at 3T (B1 = 0.625 μT) with gray and white matter, and a small simulated tumor in the right frontal region, showing the ground truth (left column), the effects of B1 and B0 errors both individually (middle columns), and combined (right column), in a noise-free simulation (top row) and a simulation with noise added (bottom row).
Practical Considerations
Long continuous RF pulses (∼5 s) are ideal for CEST but are not practical in clinical settings due to hardware, and more importantly SAR limitations. Various saturation pulses have been designed to improve the sensitivity and efficiency of CEST including pulse-train,
3
pulsed steady-state,
40
and unevenly segmented RF saturation.
41
In addition, several innovative saturation editing sequences have been proposed.42–46 Fast readout sequences improve readout efficiency and decrease scan time. Turbo spin-echo is the most common readout approach used for CEST imaging on clinical scanners,
47
as it does not suffer from susceptibility-related distortion and ghosting from lipids as seen with echo-planar-based sequences.
48
Other readout sequences or alternative saturation approaches including ultrafast Z-spectroscopy
49
can also be used to accelerate the acquisition.34,50 Parallel imaging,
51
compressed sensing,52,53 or combination of both
54
and keyhole imaging
55
can also be used to speed-up acquisition. Other promising techniques include magnetic resonance fingerprinting
56
and nonFourier transform-based techniques based on manifold learning.
57
Emerging Clinical Applications
Differentiating Tumor Progression From Treatment Response
CEST, in particular APT CEST, can be added to the existing armamentarium of structural and physiologic imaging such as diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), perfusion weighted imaging (PWI), and MRS. In particular, CEST has particular applicability in differentiating between tumor progression and treatment response in metastatic brain disease treated with radiation, or in gliomas treated with chemoradiation. Tumor progression results in higher concentration of proteins and peptides with amide groups, resulting in higher signal compared to radiation necrosis, where cellular derived protein concentrations are low (Figure 4). 64 Several studies have demonstrated that the addition of CEST to PWI and DWI metrics increases the diagnostic accuracy in differentiating tumor progression from treatment effects in patients with glioblastoma (AUC, 0.95-0.97 vs 0.84-0.91 65 and AUC, 0.87 vs 0.92 66 ). Studies to assess the additional benefit of CEST in the setting of metastatic brain disease are ongoing with a recent study showing CEST metrics were shown to differentiate radiation necrosis from tumor progression a group of 70 patients (75 lesions) with metastatic brain disease (AUC up to 0.88). 15

Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) for differentiation of tumor progression versus radiation necrosis: examples of radiation necrosis (A) and tumor progression (B) are shown for patients with brain metastases following stereotactic radiosurgery. Examples of glioma are shown following chemoradiation, including an oligodendroglioma with radiation necrosis (C) and a progressed grade 3 astrocytoma (D). All images are of selected slices from the 3D CEST acquisition at 3T.
Evaluation of Treatment Response
Studies conducted at 1.5 and 3T have demonstrated the potential to predict response to therapy in glioblastoma. Changes in MTR values between radiation planning MRI and 14 days following start of chemoradiation can identify patients who demonstrate early progression 67 (Figure 5). High MTR values in the clinical target volume (CTV), defined as enhancing tumor and resection cavity with 2 to 3 cm margin which receives the highest radiation dose, before the start of chemoradiation are associated with early progression 36 (Figure 5). In agreement with the known relationship between acidity and glioblastoma, a study of 20 patients with glioblastoma using amine CEST to determine pH demonstrated that patients with low acidity tumors have longer progression free survival compared to those with tumors showing stable or increased acidity postoperatively or throughout follow-up. 68 Compared to glioblastoma, literature regarding CEST in brain metastasis is limited. In a group of 25 patients with brain metastasis undergoing stereotactic radiosurgery, CEST metrics in contralateral WM were strongly correlated with volume change of metastatic lesions at 1-month postradiation. 69

CEST for predicting treatment response in glioblastoma: (A, B) MTR amide maps from single-slice CEST at 3T are shown before treatment at the time of radiation planning MRI (middle column) and at 14 days after the start of radiation (right column) for patients demonstrating early progression in (A) versus late progression in (B). (C, D) Images at the time of radiation planning MRI are shown of the MTR amide map (middle column) and the MTR asymmetry map (right column). The solid lines include the enhancing tumor plus the resection cavity. The dotted lines on the MTR asymmetry maps represent the clinical target volume. Regions of high MTR asymmetry in the CTV were associated with early progression (C). An example of late progression (D) is also shown.
Other Applications
Clinical CEST applications include those that measure the APT effect for improved diagnosis of brain tumors, for example, in distinguishing brain metastases from glioblastoma, 71 and also in differentiating lymphomas from high-grade gliomas, 72 partially achieved by comparing the APT signal in areas of peritumoral edema. As well, CEST has been investigated to predict grading of the gliomas demonstrating higher APT signal in high versus low-grade glioma. 70 However, most of the research studies in this area have been conducted before the release of new WHO classification of brain tumors which includes an array of new molecular and cytogenetic markers for tumor classification as opposed to purely microscopic features that were available at the time of these studies. 73 CEST has been investigated to determine the molecular subtype of gliomas. Increased CEST effect in gliomas is observed with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) gliomas compared to those with mutant IDH.30,74 Likewise, increased signal is observed in glioblastomas with unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) compared to their methylated counterparts. 75 In addition, a positive correlation between CEST signal and tumor proliferation index (Ki-67 labeling) has been shown. 76 Research in this area is still ongoing in light of new molecular biomarkers and technology. 73 Besides APT CEST, amine CEST and GlucoCEST are examples of other applications that have also been explored in neuro-oncology.77,78
Conclusion
In this article, basic principles of CEST were summarized for clinicians in neuro-oncological practice and several important areas were addressed where CEST MRI could provide added value to clinical care. This is an evolving field with many technical developments underway. For more detail, readers are encouraged to consult more in-depth publications3,7,79,80 and the references therein.
Footnotes
Abbreviations
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Arjun Sahgal:
Consultant with Varian (Medical Advisory Group), Elekta (Gamma Knife Icon), BrainLAB, Merck, Abbvie, Roche Vice President with International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Advisory Board with VieCure Co-Chair with AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor Past educational seminars (honorarium) with AstraZeneca, Elekta AB, Varian (CNS Teaching Faculty), BrainLAB, Medtronic Kyphon, Accuray, Seagen Inc. Research Grant: Elekta AB, Varian, Seagen Inc. Travel accommodations/expenses: Elekta, Varian, BrainLAB Belongs to the Elekta MR Linac Research Consortium, Elekta Spine, Elekta Oligometastases and Elekta Linac Based SRS Consortia.
All other authors declare no conflicts.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Terry Fox New Frontiers Program Project Grant and the Canadian Institute of Health Research (2017 Project Grant).
