Christian E Anderson1,2, Charlie Y Wang2, Yuning Gu2, Rebecca Darrah3,4, Mark A Griswold1,2, Xin Yu2,5, Chris A Flask1,2,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 3. Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 5. Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The regularly incremented phase encoding-magnetic resonance fingerprinting (RIPE-MRF) method is introduced to limit the sensitivity of preclinical MRF assessments to pulsatile and respiratory motion artifacts. METHODS: As compared to previously reported standard Cartesian-MRF methods (SC-MRF), the proposed RIPE-MRF method uses a modified Cartesian trajectory that varies the acquired phase-encoding line within each dynamic MRF dataset. Phantoms and mice were scanned without gating or triggering on a 7T preclinical MRI scanner using the RIPE-MRF and SC-MRF methods. In vitro phantom longitudinal relaxation time (T1 ) and transverse relaxation time (T2 ) measurements, as well as in vivo liver assessments of artifact-to-noise ratio (ANR) and MRF-based T1 and T2 mean and standard deviation, were compared between the two methods (n = 5). RESULTS: RIPE-MRF showed significant ANR reductions in regions of pulsatility (P < 0.005) and respiratory motion (P < 0.0005). RIPE-MRF also exhibited improved precision in T1 and T2 measurements in comparison to the SC-MRF method (P < 0.05). The RIPE-MRF and SC-MRF methods displayed similar mean T1 and T2 estimates (difference in mean values < 10%). CONCLUSION: These results show that the RIPE-MRF method can provide effective motion artifact suppression with minimal impact on T1 and T2 accuracy for in vivo small animal MRI studies. Magn Reson Med 79:2176-2182, 2018.
PURPOSE: The regularly incremented phase encoding-magnetic resonance fingerprinting (RIPE-MRF) method is introduced to limit the sensitivity of preclinical MRF assessments to pulsatile and respiratory motion artifacts. METHODS: As compared to previously reported standard Cartesian-MRF methods (SC-MRF), the proposed RIPE-MRF method uses a modified Cartesian trajectory that varies the acquired phase-encoding line within each dynamic MRF dataset. Phantoms and mice were scanned without gating or triggering on a 7T preclinical MRI scanner using the RIPE-MRF and SC-MRF methods. In vitro phantom longitudinal relaxation time (T1 ) and transverse relaxation time (T2 ) measurements, as well as in vivo liver assessments of artifact-to-noise ratio (ANR) and MRF-based T1 and T2 mean and standard deviation, were compared between the two methods (n = 5). RESULTS: RIPE-MRF showed significant ANR reductions in regions of pulsatility (P < 0.005) and respiratory motion (P < 0.0005). RIPE-MRF also exhibited improved precision in T1 and T2 measurements in comparison to the SC-MRF method (P < 0.05). The RIPE-MRF and SC-MRF methods displayed similar mean T1 and T2 estimates (difference in mean values < 10%). CONCLUSION: These results show that the RIPE-MRF method can provide effective motion artifact suppression with minimal impact on T1 and T2 accuracy for in vivo small animal MRI studies. Magn Reson Med 79:2176-2182, 2018.
Authors: Nivedita K Naresh; Xiao Chen; Rene J Roy; Patrick F Antkowiak; Brian H Annex; Frederick H Epstein Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Anthony N Price; Jack A Wells; David L Thomas; Roger J Ordidge; Mark F Lythgoe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Stephen F Cauley; Kawin Setsompop; Dan Ma; Yun Jiang; Huihui Ye; Elfar Adalsteinsson; Mark A Griswold; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: April M Chow; Darwin S Gao; Shu Juan Fan; Zhongwei Qiao; Frank Y Lee; Jian Yang; Kwan Man; Ed X Wu Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: B Lemasson; N Pannetier; N Coquery; Ligia S B Boisserand; Nora Collomb; N Schuff; M Moseley; G Zaharchuk; E L Barbier; T Christen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Hye-Young Heo; Zheng Han; Shanshan Jiang; Michael Schär; Peter C M van Zijl; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Christian E Anderson; Charlie Y Wang; Yuning Gu; Rebecca Darrah; Mark A Griswold; Xin Yu; Chris A Flask Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Yuning Gu; Charlie Y Wang; Christian E Anderson; Yuchi Liu; He Hu; Mette L Johansen; Dan Ma; Yun Jiang; Ciro Ramos-Estebanez; Susann Brady-Kalnay; Mark A Griswold; Chris A Flask; Xin Yu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christian E Anderson; Mette Johansen; Bernadette O Erokwu; He Hu; Yuning Gu; Yifan Zhang; Michael Kavran; Jason Vincent; Mitchell L Drumm; Mark A Griswold; Nicole F Steinmetz; Ming Li; Heather Clark; Rebecca J Darrah; Xin Yu; Susann M Brady-Kalnay; Chris A Flask Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.379