Hye-Young Heo1,2, Xiang Xu1,2, Shanshan Jiang1, Yansong Zhao3, Jochen Keupp4, Kristin J Redmond5, John Laterra2,6, Peter C M van Zijl1,2, Jinyuan Zhou1,2. 1. Divison of MR Research, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Philips Research, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop prospectively accelerated 3D CEST imaging using compressed sensing (CS), combined with a saturation scheme based on time-interleaved parallel transmission. METHODS: A variable density pseudo-random sampling pattern with a centric elliptical k-space ordering was used for CS acceleration in 3D. Retrospective CS studies were performed with CEST phantoms to test the reconstruction scheme. Prospectively CS-accelerated 3D-CEST images were acquired in 10 healthy volunteers and 6 brain tumor patients with an acceleration factor (RCS ) of 4 and compared with conventional SENSE reconstructed images. Amide proton transfer weighted (APTw) signals under varied RF saturation powers were compared with varied acceleration factors. RESULTS: The APTw signals obtained from the CS with acceleration factor of 4 were well-preserved as compared with the reference image (SENSE R = 2) both in retrospective phantom and prospective healthy volunteer studies. In the patient study, the APTw signals were significantly higher in the tumor region (gadolinium [Gd]-enhancing tumor core) than in the normal tissue (p < .001). There was no significant APTw difference between the CS-accelerated images and the reference image. The scan time of CS-accelerated 3D APTw imaging was dramatically reduced to 2:10 minutes (in-plane spatial resolution of 1.8 × 1.8 mm2 ; 15 slices with 4-mm slice thickness) as compared with SENSE (4:07 minutes). CONCLUSION: Compressed sensing acceleration was successfully extended to 3D-CEST imaging without compromising CEST image quality and quantification. The CS-based CEST imaging can easily be integrated into clinical protocols and would be beneficial for a wide range of applications.
PURPOSE: To develop prospectively accelerated 3D CEST imaging using compressed sensing (CS), combined with a saturation scheme based on time-interleaved parallel transmission. METHODS: A variable density pseudo-random sampling pattern with a centric elliptical k-space ordering was used for CS acceleration in 3D. Retrospective CS studies were performed with CEST phantoms to test the reconstruction scheme. Prospectively CS-accelerated 3D-CEST images were acquired in 10 healthy volunteers and 6 brain tumorpatients with an acceleration factor (RCS ) of 4 and compared with conventional SENSE reconstructed images. Amide proton transfer weighted (APTw) signals under varied RF saturation powers were compared with varied acceleration factors. RESULTS: The APTw signals obtained from the CS with acceleration factor of 4 were well-preserved as compared with the reference image (SENSE R = 2) both in retrospective phantom and prospective healthy volunteer studies. In the patient study, the APTw signals were significantly higher in the tumor region (gadolinium [Gd]-enhancing tumor core) than in the normal tissue (p < .001). There was no significant APTw difference between the CS-accelerated images and the reference image. The scan time of CS-accelerated 3D APTw imaging was dramatically reduced to 2:10 minutes (in-plane spatial resolution of 1.8 × 1.8 mm2 ; 15 slices with 4-mm slice thickness) as compared with SENSE (4:07 minutes). CONCLUSION: Compressed sensing acceleration was successfully extended to 3D-CEST imaging without compromising CEST image quality and quantification. The CS-based CEST imaging can easily be integrated into clinical protocols and would be beneficial for a wide range of applications.
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Jean-Francois Payen; David A Wilson; Richard J Traystman; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Nat Med Date: 2003-07-20 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Samantha By; Robert L Barry; Alex K Smith; Bailey D Lyttle; Bailey A Box; Francesca R Bagnato; Siddharama Pawate; Seth A Smith Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Shanshan Jiang; Charles G Eberhart; Michael Lim; Hye-Young Heo; Yi Zhang; Lindsay Blair; Zhibo Wen; Matthias Holdhoff; Doris Lin; Peng Huang; Huamin Qin; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa; Jon D Weingart; Peter B Barker; Martin G Pomper; John Laterra; Peter C M van Zijl; Jaishri O Blakeley; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lee Sze Foo; George Harston; Amit Mehndiratta; Wun-She Yap; Yan Chai Hum; Khin Wee Lai; Shahizon Azura Mohamed Mukari; Faizah Mohd Zaki; Yee Kai Tee Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08
Authors: Faris Durmo; Anna Rydhög; Frederik Testud; Jimmy Lätt; Benjamin Schmitt; Anna Rydelius; Elisabet Englund; Johan Bengzon; Peter van Zijl; Linda Knutsson; Pia C Sundgren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Moritz Zaiss; Linda Knutsson; Phillip Zhe Sun; Sung Soo Ahn; Silvio Aime; Peter Bachert; Jaishri O Blakeley; Kejia Cai; Michael A Chappell; Min Chen; Daniel F Gochberg; Steffen Goerke; Hye-Young Heo; Shanshan Jiang; Tao Jin; Seong-Gi Kim; John Laterra; Daniel Paech; Mark D Pagel; Ji Eun Park; Ravinder Reddy; Akihiko Sakata; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; A Dean Sherry; Seth A Smith; Greg J Stanisz; Pia C Sundgren; Osamu Togao; Moriel Vandsburger; Zhibo Wen; Yin Wu; Yi Zhang; Wenzhen Zhu; Zhongliang Zu; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.737