Ramin Jafari1,2, Sujit Sheth3, Pascal Spincemaille2, Thanh D Nguyen2, Martin R Prince2, Yan Wen1,2, Yihao Guo2,4, Kofi Deh2, Zhe Liu1,2, Daniel Margolis2, Gary M Brittenham5, Andrea S Kierans2, Yi Wang1,2. 1. Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA. 4. School of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of the liver iron concentration (LIC) is needed to guide iron-chelating therapy for patients with transfusional iron overload. In this work, we investigate the feasibility of automated quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) to measure the LIC. PURPOSE: To develop a rapid, robust, and automated liver QSM for clinical practice. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: 13 healthy subjects and 22 patients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 1.5 T and 3 T/3D multiecho gradient-recalled echo (GRE) sequence. ASSESSMENT: Data were acquired using a 3D GRE sequence with an out-of-phase echo spacing with respect to each other. All odd echoes that were in-phase (IP) were used to initialize the fat-water separation and field estimation (T2 *-IDEAL) before performing QSM. Liver QSM was generated through an automated pipeline without manual intervention. This IP echo-based initialization method was compared with an existing graph cuts initialization method (simultaneous phase unwrapping and removal of chemical shift, SPURS) in healthy subjects (n = 5). Reproducibility was assessed over four scanners at two field strengths from two manufacturers using healthy subjects (n = 8). Clinical feasibility was evaluated in patients (n = 22). STATISTICAL TESTS: IP and SPURS initialization methods in both healthy subjects and patients were compared using paired t-test and linear regression analysis to assess processing time and region of interest (ROI) measurements. Reproducibility of QSM, R2 *, and proton density fat fraction (PDFF) among the four different scanners was assessed using linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Liver QSM using the IP method was found to be ~5.5 times faster than SPURS (P < 0.05) in initializing T2 *-IDEAL with similar outputs. Liver QSM using the IP method were reproducibly generated in all four scanners (average coefficient of determination 0.95, average slope 0.90, average bias 0.002 ppm, 95% limits of agreement between -0.06 to 0.07 ppm, ICC 0.97). DATA CONCLUSION: Use of IP echo-based initialization enables robust water/fat separation and field estimation for automated, rapid, and reproducible liver QSM for clinical applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:725-732.
BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of the liver iron concentration (LIC) is needed to guide iron-chelating therapy for patients with transfusional iron overload. In this work, we investigate the feasibility of automated quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) to measure the LIC. PURPOSE: To develop a rapid, robust, and automated liver QSM for clinical practice. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: 13 healthy subjects and 22 patients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 1.5 T and 3 T/3D multiecho gradient-recalled echo (GRE) sequence. ASSESSMENT: Data were acquired using a 3D GRE sequence with an out-of-phase echo spacing with respect to each other. All odd echoes that were in-phase (IP) were used to initialize the fat-water separation and field estimation (T2 *-IDEAL) before performing QSM. Liver QSM was generated through an automated pipeline without manual intervention. This IP echo-based initialization method was compared with an existing graph cuts initialization method (simultaneous phase unwrapping and removal of chemical shift, SPURS) in healthy subjects (n = 5). Reproducibility was assessed over four scanners at two field strengths from two manufacturers using healthy subjects (n = 8). Clinical feasibility was evaluated in patients (n = 22). STATISTICAL TESTS: IP and SPURS initialization methods in both healthy subjects and patients were compared using paired t-test and linear regression analysis to assess processing time and region of interest (ROI) measurements. Reproducibility of QSM, R2 *, and proton density fat fraction (PDFF) among the four different scanners was assessed using linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Liver QSM using the IP method was found to be ~5.5 times faster than SPURS (P < 0.05) in initializing T2 *-IDEAL with similar outputs. Liver QSM using the IP method were reproducibly generated in all four scanners (average coefficient of determination 0.95, average slope 0.90, average bias 0.002 ppm, 95% limits of agreement between -0.06 to 0.07 ppm, ICC 0.97). DATA CONCLUSION: Use of IP echo-based initialization enables robust water/fat separation and field estimation for automated, rapid, and reproducible liver QSM for clinical applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:725-732.
Authors: Daniel C Sullivan; Nancy A Obuchowski; Larry G Kessler; David L Raunig; Constantine Gatsonis; Erich P Huang; Marina Kondratovich; Lisa M McShane; Anthony P Reeves; Daniel P Barboriak; Alexander R Guimaraes; Richard L Wahl Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Guangwei Du; Tian Liu; Mechelle M Lewis; Lan Kong; Yi Wang; James Connor; Richard B Mailman; Xuemei Huang Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Mengchao Pei; Thanh D Nguyen; Nanda D Thimmappa; Carlo Salustri; Fang Dong; Mitch A Cooper; Jianqi Li; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Ramin Jafari; Stefanie J Hectors; Anne K Koehne de González; Pascal Spincemaille; Martin R Prince; Gary M Brittenham; Yi Wang Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Ramin Jafari; Pascal Spincemaille; Jinwei Zhang; Thanh D Nguyen; Xianfu Luo; Junghun Cho; Daniel Margolis; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja; Ralf B Loeffler; Jane S Hankins; Cara Morin; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Alberto Aimo; Li Huang; Andrew Tyler; Andrea Barison; Nicola Martini; Luigi F Saccaro; Sébastien Roujol; Pier-Giorgio Masci Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: Eric Bechler; Julia Stabinska; Thomas Thiel; Jonas Jasse; Romans Zukovs; Birte Valentin; Hans-Jörg Wittsack; Alexandra Ljimani Journal: MAGMA Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 2.310