PURPOSE: In transcranial magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (tcMRgFUS) treatments, the acoustic and spatial heterogeneity of the skull cause reflection, absorption, and scattering of the acoustic beams. These effects depend on skull-specific parameters and can lead to patient-specific thermal responses to the same transducer power. In this work, the authors develop a simulation tool to help predict these different experimental responses using 3D heterogeneous tissue models based on the subject CT images. The authors then validate and compare the predicted skull efficiencies to an experimental metric based on the subject thermal responses during tcMRgFUS treatments in a dataset of seventeen human subjects. METHODS: Seventeen human head CT scans were used to create tissue acoustic models, simulating the effects of reflection, absorption, and scattering of the acoustic beam as it propagates through a heterogeneous skull. The hybrid angular spectrum technique was used to model the acoustic beam propagation of the InSightec ExAblate 4000 head transducer for each subject, yielding maps of the specific absorption rate (SAR). The simulation assumed the transducer was geometrically focused to the thalamus of each subject, and the focal SAR at the target was used as a measure of the simulated skull efficiency. Experimental skull efficiency for each subject was calculated using the thermal temperature maps from the tcMRgFUS treatments. Axial temperature images (with no artifacts) were reconstructed with a single baseline, corrected using a referenceless algorithm. The experimental skull efficiency was calculated by dividing the reconstructed temperature rise 8.8 s after sonication by the applied acoustic power. RESULTS: The simulated skull efficiency using individual-specific heterogeneous models predicts well (R(2) = 0.84) the experimental energy efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents a simulation model to predict the variation in thermal responses measured in clinical ctMRGFYS treatments while being computationally feasible.
PURPOSE: In transcranial magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (tcMRgFUS) treatments, the acoustic and spatial heterogeneity of the skull cause reflection, absorption, and scattering of the acoustic beams. These effects depend on skull-specific parameters and can lead to patient-specific thermal responses to the same transducer power. In this work, the authors develop a simulation tool to help predict these different experimental responses using 3D heterogeneous tissue models based on the subject CT images. The authors then validate and compare the predicted skull efficiencies to an experimental metric based on the subject thermal responses during tcMRgFUS treatments in a dataset of seventeen human subjects. METHODS: Seventeen human head CT scans were used to create tissue acoustic models, simulating the effects of reflection, absorption, and scattering of the acoustic beam as it propagates through a heterogeneous skull. The hybrid angular spectrum technique was used to model the acoustic beam propagation of the InSightec ExAblate 4000 head transducer for each subject, yielding maps of the specific absorption rate (SAR). The simulation assumed the transducer was geometrically focused to the thalamus of each subject, and the focal SAR at the target was used as a measure of the simulated skull efficiency. Experimental skull efficiency for each subject was calculated using the thermal temperature maps from the tcMRgFUS treatments. Axial temperature images (with no artifacts) were reconstructed with a single baseline, corrected using a referenceless algorithm. The experimental skull efficiency was calculated by dividing the reconstructed temperature rise 8.8 s after sonication by the applied acoustic power. RESULTS: The simulated skull efficiency using individual-specific heterogeneous models predicts well (R(2) = 0.84) the experimental energy efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents a simulation model to predict the variation in thermal responses measured in clinical ctMRGFYS treatments while being computationally feasible.
Authors: Stephen Monteith; Jason Sheehan; Ricky Medel; Max Wintermark; Matthew Eames; John Snell; Neal F Kassell; W Jeff Elias Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2012-11-23 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: W Jeffrey Elias; Diane Huss; Tiffini Voss; Johanna Loomba; Mohamad Khaled; Eyal Zadicario; Robert C Frysinger; Scott A Sperling; Scott Wylie; Stephen J Monteith; Jason Druzgal; Binit B Shah; Madaline Harrison; Max Wintermark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pooja Gaur; Kerriann M Casey; Jan Kubanek; Ningrui Li; Morteza Mohammadjavadi; Yamil Saenz; Gary H Glover; Donna M Bouley; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Taylor D Webb; Steven A Leung; Jarrett Rosenberg; Pejman Ghanouni; Jeremy J Dahl; Norbert J Pelc; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Allison H Payne; Gregory W Hawryluk; Yoshimi Anzai; Henrik Odéen; Megan A Ostlie; Ethan C Reichert; Amanda J Stump; Satoshi Minoshima; Donna J Cross Journal: Neural Regen Res Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 5.135
Authors: M Anthony Phipps; Sumeeth V Jonathan; Pai-Feng Yang; Vandiver Chaplin; Li Min Chen; William A Grissom; Charles F Caskey Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Steven A Leung; David Moore; Taylor D Webb; John Snell; Pejman Ghanouni; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Taylor D Webb; Steven A Leung; Pejman Ghanouni; Jeremy J Dahl; Norbert J Pelc; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 2.725