Yi Guo1, R Marc Lebel2, Yinghua Zhu1, Sajan Goud Lingala1, Mark S Shiroishi3, Meng Law3, Krishna Nayak1. 1. Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089. 2. GE Healthcare, Calgary, Alberta AB T2P 1G1, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To clinically evaluate a highly accelerated T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI technique that provides high spatial resolution and whole-brain coverage via undersampling and constrained reconstruction with multiple sparsity constraints. METHODS: Conventional (rate-2 SENSE) and experimental DCE-MRI (rate-30) scans were performed 20 minutes apart in 15 brain tumor patients. The conventional clinical DCE-MRI had voxel dimensions 0.9 × 1.3 × 7.0 mm(3), FOV 22 × 22 × 4.2 cm(3), and the experimental DCE-MRI had voxel dimensions 0.9 × 0.9 × 1.9 mm(3), and broader coverage 22 × 22 × 19 cm(3). Temporal resolution was 5 s for both protocols. Time-resolved images and blood-brain barrier permeability maps were qualitatively evaluated by two radiologists. RESULTS: The experimental DCE-MRI scans showed no loss of qualitative information in any of the cases, while achieving substantially higher spatial resolution and whole-brain spatial coverage. Average qualitative scores (from 0 to 3) were 2.1 for the experimental scans and 1.1 for the conventional clinical scans. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed DCE-MRI approach provides clinically superior image quality with higher spatial resolution and coverage than currently available approaches. These advantages may allow comprehensive permeability mapping in the brain, which is especially valuable in the setting of large lesions or multiple lesions spread throughout the brain.
PURPOSE: To clinically evaluate a highly accelerated T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI technique that provides high spatial resolution and whole-brain coverage via undersampling and constrained reconstruction with multiple sparsity constraints. METHODS: Conventional (rate-2 SENSE) and experimental DCE-MRI (rate-30) scans were performed 20 minutes apart in 15 brain tumorpatients. The conventional clinical DCE-MRI had voxel dimensions 0.9 × 1.3 × 7.0 mm(3), FOV 22 × 22 × 4.2 cm(3), and the experimental DCE-MRI had voxel dimensions 0.9 × 0.9 × 1.9 mm(3), and broader coverage 22 × 22 × 19 cm(3). Temporal resolution was 5 s for both protocols. Time-resolved images and blood-brain barrier permeability maps were qualitatively evaluated by two radiologists. RESULTS: The experimental DCE-MRI scans showed no loss of qualitative information in any of the cases, while achieving substantially higher spatial resolution and whole-brain spatial coverage. Average qualitative scores (from 0 to 3) were 2.1 for the experimental scans and 1.1 for the conventional clinical scans. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed DCE-MRI approach provides clinically superior image quality with higher spatial resolution and coverage than currently available approaches. These advantages may allow comprehensive permeability mapping in the brain, which is especially valuable in the setting of large lesions or multiple lesions spread throughout the brain.
Authors: Gregory R Lee; Nicole Seiberlich; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Timothy J Carroll; Mark A Griswold Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Janet C Miller; Homer H Pien; Dushyant Sahani; A Gregory Sorensen; James H Thrall Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Martin Uecker; Peng Lai; Mark J Murphy; Patrick Virtue; Michael Elad; John M Pauly; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Michael Lustig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Axel Montagne; Samuel R Barnes; Melanie D Sweeney; Matthew R Halliday; Abhay P Sagare; Zhen Zhao; Arthur W Toga; Russell E Jacobs; Collin Y Liu; Lilyana Amezcua; Michael G Harrington; Helena C Chui; Meng Law; Berislav V Zlokovic Journal: Neuron Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Anna K Heye; Ross D Culling; Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Michael J Thrippleton; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Yi Guo; Sajan Goud Lingala; Yannick Bliesener; R Marc Lebel; Yinghua Zhu; Krishna S Nayak Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: John Maidens; Jeremy W Gordon; Hsin-Yu Chen; Ilwoo Park; Mark Van Criekinge; Eugene Milshteyn; Robert Bok; Rahul Aggarwal; Marcus Ferrone; James B Slater; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Murat Arcak; Peder E Z Larson Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 10.048