Henrik Odéen1,2, Nick Todd1, Christopher Dillon3, Allison Payne1, Dennis L Parker1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluate effects of model parameter inaccuracies (thermal conductivity, k, and ultrasound power deposition density, Q), k-space reduction factor (R), and rate of temperature increase ( T˙) in a thermal model-based reconstruction for MR-thermometry during focused-ultrasound heating. METHODS: Simulations and ex vivo experiments were performed to investigate the accuracy of the thermal model and the model predictive filtering (MPF) algorithm for varying R and T˙, and their sensitivity to errors in k and Q. Ex vivo data was acquired with a segmented EPI pulse sequence to achieve large field-of-view (192 × 162 × 96 mm) four-dimensional temperature maps with high spatiotemporal resolution (1.5 × 1.5 × 2.0 mm, 1.7 s). RESULTS: In the simulations, 50% errors in k and Q resulted in maximum temperature root mean square errors (RMSE) of 6 °C for model only and 3 °C for MPF. Using recently developed methods, estimates of k and Q were accurate to within 3%. The RMSE between MPF and true temperature increased with R and T˙. In the ex vivo study the RMSE remained below 0.7 °C for R ranging from 4 to 12 and T˙ of 0.28-0.75 °C/s. CONCLUSION: Errors in MPF temperatures occur due to errors in k and Q. These MPF temperature errors increase with increase in R and T˙, but are smaller than those obtained using the thermal model alone.
PURPOSE: Evaluate effects of model parameter inaccuracies (thermal conductivity, k, and ultrasound power deposition density, Q), k-space reduction factor (R), and rate of temperature increase ( T˙) in a thermal model-based reconstruction for MR-thermometry during focused-ultrasound heating. METHODS: Simulations and ex vivo experiments were performed to investigate the accuracy of the thermal model and the model predictive filtering (MPF) algorithm for varying R and T˙, and their sensitivity to errors in k and Q. Ex vivo data was acquired with a segmented EPI pulse sequence to achieve large field-of-view (192 × 162 × 96 mm) four-dimensional temperature maps with high spatiotemporal resolution (1.5 × 1.5 × 2.0 mm, 1.7 s). RESULTS: In the simulations, 50% errors in k and Q resulted in maximum temperature root mean square errors (RMSE) of 6 °C for model only and 3 °C for MPF. Using recently developed methods, estimates of k and Q were accurate to within 3%. The RMSE between MPF and true temperature increased with R and T˙. In the ex vivo study the RMSE remained below 0.7 °C for R ranging from 4 to 12 and T˙ of 0.28-0.75 °C/s. CONCLUSION: Errors in MPF temperatures occur due to errors in k and Q. These MPF temperature errors increase with increase in R and T˙, but are smaller than those obtained using the thermal model alone.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Henrik Odéen; Joshua de Bever; Scott Almquist; Alexis Farrer; Nick Todd; Allison Payne; John W Snell; Douglas A Christensen; Dennis L Parker Journal: J Ther Ultrasound Date: 2014-10-16