Yi Guo1, Sajan Goud Lingala1, Yinghua Zhu1, R Marc Lebel2, Krishna S Nayak1. 1. Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. GE Healthcare, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to develop and evaluate a T1 -weighted dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI methodology where tracer-kinetic (TK) parameter maps are directly estimated from undersampled (k,t)-space data. THEORY AND METHODS: The proposed reconstruction involves solving a nonlinear least squares optimization problem that includes explicit use of a full forward model to convert parameter maps to (k,t)-space, utilizing the Patlak TK model. The proposed scheme is compared against an indirect method that creates intermediate images by parallel imaging and compressed sensing before to TK modeling. Thirteen fully sampled brain tumor DCE-MRI scans with 5-second temporal resolution are retrospectively undersampled at rates R = 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 for each dynamic frame. TK maps are quantitatively compared based on root mean-squared-error (rMSE) and Bland-Altman analysis. The approach is also applied to four prospectively R = 30 undersampled whole-brain DCE-MRI data sets. RESULTS: In the retrospective study, the proposed method performed statistically better than indirect method at R ≥ 80 for all 13 cases. This approach provided restoration of TK parameter values with less errors in tumor regions of interest, an improvement compared to a state-of-the-art indirect method. Applied prospectively, the proposed method provided whole-brain, high-resolution TK maps with good image quality. CONCLUSION: Model-based direct estimation of TK maps from k,t-space DCE-MRI data is feasible and is compatible up to 100-fold undersampling. Magn Reson Med 78:1566-1578, 2017.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to develop and evaluate a T1 -weighted dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI methodology where tracer-kinetic (TK) parameter maps are directly estimated from undersampled (k,t)-space data. THEORY AND METHODS: The proposed reconstruction involves solving a nonlinear least squares optimization problem that includes explicit use of a full forward model to convert parameter maps to (k,t)-space, utilizing the Patlak TK model. The proposed scheme is compared against an indirect method that creates intermediate images by parallel imaging and compressed sensing before to TK modeling. Thirteen fully sampled brain tumorDCE-MRI scans with 5-second temporal resolution are retrospectively undersampled at rates R = 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 for each dynamic frame. TK maps are quantitatively compared based on root mean-squared-error (rMSE) and Bland-Altman analysis. The approach is also applied to four prospectively R = 30 undersampled whole-brain DCE-MRI data sets. RESULTS: In the retrospective study, the proposed method performed statistically better than indirect method at R ≥ 80 for all 13 cases. This approach provided restoration of TK parameter values with less errors in tumor regions of interest, an improvement compared to a state-of-the-art indirect method. Applied prospectively, the proposed method provided whole-brain, high-resolution TK maps with good image quality. CONCLUSION: Model-based direct estimation of TK maps from k,t-space DCE-MRI data is feasible and is compatible up to 100-fold undersampling. Magn Reson Med 78:1566-1578, 2017.
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Yi Guo; R Marc Lebel; Yinghua Zhu; Sajan Goud Lingala; Mark S Shiroishi; Meng Law; Krishna Nayak Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Li Feng; Justin Ream; Annie Wang; James S Babb; Kai Tobias Block; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Yanguang Lin; Justin P Haldar; Quanzheng Li; Peter S Conti; Richard M Leahy Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 10.048
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: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
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: 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: Dimitra Flouri; Daniel Lesnic; Constantina Chrysochou; Jehill Parikh; Peter Thelwall; Neil Sheerin; Philip A Kalra; David L Buckley; Steven P Sourbron Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 2.310