James A Rioux1, Ives R Levesque1,2,3, Brian K Rutt1. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetization transfer in white matter (WM) causes biexponential relaxation, but most quantitative T1 measurements fit data assuming monoexponential relaxation. The resulting monoexponential T1 estimate varies based on scan parameters and represents a source of variation between studies, especially at high fields. In this study, we characterized WM T1 relaxation and performed simulations to determine how to minimize this deviation. METHODS: To characterize biexponential relaxation, four volunteers were scanned at 3T and 7T using inversion recovery fast spin echo (IR-FSE) with 13 inversion times (TIs). Three volunteers were scanned with IR-FSE using TIs chosen by simulations to reduce T1 deviation, and with MP2RAGE. RESULTS: At 3T, the biexponential relaxation has a short component of T1 = 48 ms (9%) and a long component of T1 = 939 ms. At 7T the short component is T1 = 57 ms (11%) and the long component is 1349 ms (89%). For IR-FSE, acquiring four TIs with a minimum of 150 ms (3T) or 200 ms (7T) yielded monoexponential T1 estimates that match the long component to within 10 ms. For MP2RAGE, significant differences (90 ms at 3T, 125 ms at 7T) remain at all parameter values. CONCLUSION: Many T1 mapping sequences yield robust estimates of the long T1 component with suitable choice of TIs, allowing reproducible, sequence-independent T1 values to be measured. However, this is not true of MP2RAGE in its current implementation. Magn Reson Med 75:2265-2277, 2016.
PURPOSE: Magnetization transfer in white matter (WM) causes biexponential relaxation, but most quantitative T1 measurements fit data assuming monoexponential relaxation. The resulting monoexponential T1 estimate varies based on scan parameters and represents a source of variation between studies, especially at high fields. In this study, we characterized WM T1 relaxation and performed simulations to determine how to minimize this deviation. METHODS: To characterize biexponential relaxation, four volunteers were scanned at 3T and 7T using inversion recovery fast spin echo (IR-FSE) with 13 inversion times (TIs). Three volunteers were scanned with IR-FSE using TIs chosen by simulations to reduce T1 deviation, and with MP2RAGE. RESULTS: At 3T, the biexponential relaxation has a short component of T1 = 48 ms (9%) and a long component of T1 = 939 ms. At 7T the short component is T1 = 57 ms (11%) and the long component is 1349 ms (89%). For IR-FSE, acquiring four TIs with a minimum of 150 ms (3T) or 200 ms (7T) yielded monoexponential T1 estimates that match the long component to within 10 ms. For MP2RAGE, significant differences (90 ms at 3T, 125 ms at 7T) remain at all parameter values. CONCLUSION: Many T1 mapping sequences yield robust estimates of the long T1 component with suitable choice of TIs, allowing reproducible, sequence-independent T1 values to be measured. However, this is not true of MP2RAGE in its current implementation. Magn Reson Med 75:2265-2277, 2016.
Authors: Richard D Dortch; Ke Li; Daniel F Gochberg; E Brian Welch; Adrienne N Dula; Ashish A Tamhane; John C Gore; Seth A Smith Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Nikola Stikov; Mathieu Boudreau; Ives R Levesque; Christine L Tardif; Joëlle K Barral; G Bruce Pike Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Joëlle K Barral; Erik Gudmundson; Nikola Stikov; Maryam Etezadi-Amoli; Petre Stoica; Dwight G Nishimura Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ke Li; Zhongliang Zu; Junzhong Xu; Vaibhav A Janve; John C Gore; Mark D Does; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: José P Marques; Tobias Kober; Gunnar Krueger; Wietske van der Zwaag; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Rolf Gruetter Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Dan Ma; Vikas Gulani; Nicole Seiberlich; Kecheng Liu; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Jeffrey L Duerk; Mark A Griswold Journal: Nature Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Matthias A Dieringer; Michael Deimling; Davide Santoro; Jens Wuerfel; Vince I Madai; Jan Sobesky; Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Thoralf Niendorf Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Samuel Groeschel; Gisela E Hagberg; Thomas Schultz; Dávid Z Balla; Uwe Klose; Till-Karsten Hauser; Thomas Nägele; Oliver Bieri; Thomas Prasloski; Alex L MacKay; Ingeborg Krägeloh-Mann; Klaus Scheffler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yulia Shcherbakova; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Chrit T W Moonen; Lambertus W Bartels Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.668