Jiaxin Shao1, Dapeng Liu1, Kyunghyun Sung1, Kim-Lien Nguyen2,3, Peng Hu1,4. 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Biomedical Physics Inter-Departmental Graduate Program, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and precision of four different T1 estimation algorithms for modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI). METHODS: Four T1 estimation algorithms, including the original fit, inversion group (IG) fit, instantaneous signal loss simulation (InSiL), and Bloch equation simulation with slice profile correction (BLESSPC) were studied. T1 estimation accuracy, precision, reproducibility, and sensitivity to heart rate (HR), flip angle (FA), and acquisition scheme (AcS) variations were compared in simulation, phantom, and volunteer studies. RESULTS: T1 estimation accuracy of IG (-2.4% ± 3.9%) and original fit (-3.2% ± 1.4%) were worse than BLESSPC (0.2% ± 1.5%) and InSiL (-0.7% ± 2.1%). The original fit had the best precision for T1 from 409-1884 ms for the same FA (0.67% ± 0.16% versus 0.90% ± 0.23% using IG, 0.78% ± 0.11% using InSiL, 0.77% ± 0.12% using BLESSPC). BLESSPC generated the most consistent in vivo T1 values over different FAs and AcS, and the T1 estimation reproducibility was similar (P > 0.3) among the four methods when FA = 35°. When using FA = 50°, the reproducibility was significantly improved only when using BLESSPC (1.6% ± 0.9 versus 2.6% ± 1.9%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: BLESSPC has superior accuracy and is the least sensitive to FA, HR, and AcS variations. T1 estimation using BLESSPC and FA = 50° is superior to conventional MOLLI with FA = 35° in accuracy and precision. Further clinical studies in varying pathological conditions are warranted to confirm our findings. Magn Reson Med 78:1746-1756, 2017.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and precision of four different T1 estimation algorithms for modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI). METHODS: Four T1 estimation algorithms, including the original fit, inversion group (IG) fit, instantaneous signal loss simulation (InSiL), and Bloch equation simulation with slice profile correction (BLESSPC) were studied. T1 estimation accuracy, precision, reproducibility, and sensitivity to heart rate (HR), flip angle (FA), and acquisition scheme (AcS) variations were compared in simulation, phantom, and volunteer studies. RESULTS: T1 estimation accuracy of IG (-2.4% ± 3.9%) and original fit (-3.2% ± 1.4%) were worse than BLESSPC (0.2% ± 1.5%) and InSiL (-0.7% ± 2.1%). The original fit had the best precision for T1 from 409-1884 ms for the same FA (0.67% ± 0.16% versus 0.90% ± 0.23% using IG, 0.78% ± 0.11% using InSiL, 0.77% ± 0.12% using BLESSPC). BLESSPC generated the most consistent in vivo T1 values over different FAs and AcS, and the T1 estimation reproducibility was similar (P > 0.3) among the four methods when FA = 35°. When using FA = 50°, the reproducibility was significantly improved only when using BLESSPC (1.6% ± 0.9 versus 2.6% ± 1.9%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: BLESSPC has superior accuracy and is the least sensitive to FA, HR, and AcS variations. T1 estimation using BLESSPC and FA = 50° is superior to conventional MOLLI with FA = 35° in accuracy and precision. Further clinical studies in varying pathological conditions are warranted to confirm our findings. Magn Reson Med 78:1746-1756, 2017.
Authors: Kelvin Chow; Jacqueline A Flewitt; Jordin D Green; Joseph J Pagano; Matthias G Friedrich; Richard B Thompson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hui Xue; Andreas Greiser; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Jens Guehring; Andrew E Arai; Peter Kellman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Stefan K Piechnik; Vanessa M Ferreira; Erica Dall'Armellina; Lowri E Cochlin; Andreas Greiser; Stefan Neubauer; Matthew D Robson Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-11-19 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Darius Dabir; Nicholas Child; Ashwin Kalra; Toby Rogers; Rolf Gebker; Andrew Jabbour; Sven Plein; Chung-Yao Yu; James Otton; Ananth Kidambi; Adam McDiarmid; David Broadbent; David M Higgins; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Lucy Foote; Ciara Cummins; Eike Nagel; Valentina O Puntmann Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Christopher T Rodgers; Stefan K Piechnik; Lance J Delabarre; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Carl J Snyder; Stefan Neubauer; Matthew D Robson; J Thomas Vaughan Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ferenc E Mozes; Elizabeth M Tunnicliffe; Michael Pavlides; Matthew D Robson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Brendan L Eck; Scott D Flamm; Deborah H Kwon; W H Wilson Tang; Claudia Prieto Vasquez; Nicole Seiberlich Journal: Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 9.795