Hyungseok Jang1, Xing Lu1,2, Michael Carl3, Adam C Searleman1, Saeed Jerban1, Yajun Ma1, Annette von Drygalski4, Eric Y Chang1,5, Jiang Du1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. 2. Institute of Electrical Engineering, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, China. 3. GE Healthcare, San Diego, California. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Diego, California. 5. Radiology Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we explore the feasibility of a new imaging scheme for quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): continuous single-point imaging (CSPI), which uses a pure phase encoding strategy to achieve true phase imaging and improve QSM accuracy. METHODS: The proposed CSPI is a modification of conventional SPI to allow acquisition of multiple echoes in a single scan. Immediately following a phase encoding gradient, the free induction decay is continuously sampled with extremely high temporal resolution to obtain k-space data at a fixed spatial frequency (i.e., at a fixed k-space coordinate). By having near-0 readout duration, CSPI results in a true snapshot of the transverse magnetization at each TE. Additionally, parallel imaging with autocalibration is utilized to reduce scan time, and an optional temporal averaging strategy is presented to improve signal-to-noise ratio for objects with low proton density or short T2* decay. The reconstructed CSPI images were input to a QSM framework based on morphology enabled dipole inversion. RESULT: In an experiment performed using iron phantoms, susceptibility estimated using CSPI showed high linearity (R2 = 0.9948) with iron concentration. Additionally, reconstructed CSPI phase images showed much reduced ringing artifact compared with phase images obtained using a frequency encoding strategy. In an ex vivo experiment performed using human tibia samples, estimated susceptibilities ranged from -1.6 to -2.1 ppm, in agreement with values reported in the literature (ranging from -1.2 to -2.2 ppm). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated the feasibility of using CSPI to obtain true phase images for QSM.
PURPOSE: In this study, we explore the feasibility of a new imaging scheme for quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): continuous single-point imaging (CSPI), which uses a pure phase encoding strategy to achieve true phase imaging and improve QSM accuracy. METHODS: The proposed CSPI is a modification of conventional SPI to allow acquisition of multiple echoes in a single scan. Immediately following a phase encoding gradient, the free induction decay is continuously sampled with extremely high temporal resolution to obtain k-space data at a fixed spatial frequency (i.e., at a fixed k-space coordinate). By having near-0 readout duration, CSPI results in a true snapshot of the transverse magnetization at each TE. Additionally, parallel imaging with autocalibration is utilized to reduce scan time, and an optional temporal averaging strategy is presented to improve signal-to-noise ratio for objects with low proton density or short T2* decay. The reconstructed CSPI images were input to a QSM framework based on morphology enabled dipole inversion. RESULT: In an experiment performed using iron phantoms, susceptibility estimated using CSPI showed high linearity (R2 = 0.9948) with iron concentration. Additionally, reconstructed CSPI phase images showed much reduced ringing artifact compared with phase images obtained using a frequency encoding strategy. In an ex vivo experiment performed using human tibia samples, estimated susceptibilities ranged from -1.6 to -2.1 ppm, in agreement with values reported in the literature (ranging from -1.2 to -2.2 ppm). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated the feasibility of using CSPI to obtain true phase images for QSM.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christian Langkammer; Tian Liu; Michael Khalil; Christian Enzinger; Margit Jehna; Siegrid Fuchs; Franz Fazekas; Yi Wang; Stefan Ropele Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cynthia Wisnieff; Sriram Ramanan; John Olesik; Susan Gauthier; Yi Wang; David Pitt Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Yan Wen; Thanh D Nguyen; Zhe Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Dong Zhou; Alexey Dimov; Youngwook Kee; Kofi Deh; Jiwon Kim; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tian Liu; Ildar Khalidov; Ludovic de Rochefort; Pascal Spincemaille; Jing Liu; A John Tsiouris; Yi Wang Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Hyungseok Jang; Annette von Drygalski; Jonathan Wong; Jenny Y Zhou; Peter Aguero; Xing Lu; Xin Cheng; Scott T Ball; Yajun Ma; Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hyungseok Jang; Alan B McMillan; Yajun Ma; Saeed Jerban; Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du; Richard Kijowski Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: H Jang; Y-J Ma; E Y Chang; S Fazeli; R R Lee; A F Lombardi; G M Bydder; J Corey-Bloom; J Du Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Saeed Jerban; Yajun Ma; Erik W Dorthe; Lena Kakos; Nicole Le; Salem Alenezi; Robert L Sah; Eric Y Chang; Darryl D'Lima; Jiang Du Journal: Bone Rep Date: 2019-08-02
Authors: Hyungseok Jang; Michael Carl; Yajun Ma; Adam C Searleman; Saeed Jerban; Eric Y Chang; Jody Corey-Bloom; Jiang Du Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-05