S Sophie Schauman1, Mark Chiew1, Thomas W Okell1. 1. Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate that vessel selectivity in dynamic arterial spin labeling angiography can be achieved without any scan-time penalty or noticeable loss of image quality compared with conventional arterial spin labeling angiography. METHODS: Simulations on a numerical phantom were used to assess whether the increased sparsity of vessel-encoded angiograms compared with non-vessel-encoded angiograms alone can improve reconstruction results in a compressed-sensing framework. Further simulations were performed to study whether the difference in relative sparsity between nonselective and vessel-selective dynamic angiograms was sufficient to achieve similar image quality at matched scan times in the presence of noise. Finally, data were acquired from 5 healthy volunteers to validate the technique in vivo. All data, both simulated and in vivo, were sampled in 2D using a golden-angle radial trajectory and reconstructed by enforcing image domain sparsity and temporal smoothness on the angiograms in a parallel imaging and compressed-sensing framework. RESULTS: Relative sparsity was established as a primary factor governing the reconstruction fidelity. Using the proposed reconstruction scheme, differences between vessel-selective and nonselective angiography were negligible compared with the dominant factor of total scan time in both simulations and in vivo experiments at acceleration factors up to R = 34. The reconstruction quality was not heavily dependent on hand-tuning the parameters of the reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The increase in relative sparsity of vessel-selective angiograms compared with nonselective angiograms can be leveraged to achieve higher acceleration without loss of image quality, resulting in the acquisition of vessel-selective information at no scan-time cost.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate that vessel selectivity in dynamic arterial spin labeling angiography can be achieved without any scan-time penalty or noticeable loss of image quality compared with conventional arterial spin labeling angiography. METHODS: Simulations on a numerical phantom were used to assess whether the increased sparsity of vessel-encoded angiograms compared with non-vessel-encoded angiograms alone can improve reconstruction results in a compressed-sensing framework. Further simulations were performed to study whether the difference in relative sparsity between nonselective and vessel-selective dynamic angiograms was sufficient to achieve similar image quality at matched scan times in the presence of noise. Finally, data were acquired from 5 healthy volunteers to validate the technique in vivo. All data, both simulated and in vivo, were sampled in 2D using a golden-angle radial trajectory and reconstructed by enforcing image domain sparsity and temporal smoothness on the angiograms in a parallel imaging and compressed-sensing framework. RESULTS: Relative sparsity was established as a primary factor governing the reconstruction fidelity. Using the proposed reconstruction scheme, differences between vessel-selective and nonselective angiography were negligible compared with the dominant factor of total scan time in both simulations and in vivo experiments at acceleration factors up to R = 34. The reconstruction quality was not heavily dependent on hand-tuning the parameters of the reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The increase in relative sparsity of vessel-selective angiograms compared with nonselective angiograms can be leveraged to achieve higher acceleration without loss of image quality, resulting in the acquisition of vessel-selective information at no scan-time cost.
Authors: Michael Helle; David G Norris; Susanne Rüfer; Karsten Alfke; Olav Jansen; Matthias J P van Osch Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; John Huston; Jay N Mandrekar; Cathy D Schleck; Kent R Thielen; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Li Feng; Robert Grimm; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana; Sungheon Kim; Jian Xu; Leon Axel; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Thomas W Okell; Peter Schmitt; Xiaoming Bi; Michael A Chappell; Rob H N Tijssen; Fintan Sheerin; Karla L Miller; Peter Jezzard Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Yang Li; Chantelle Lim; Michael Schär; Dengrong Jiang; Ye Qiao; Jay J Pillai; Hanzhang Lu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Luis Hernandez-Garcia; Verónica Aramendía-Vidaurreta; Divya S Bolar; Weiying Dai; Maria A Fernández-Seara; Jia Guo; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Henk Mutsaerts; Jan Petr; Qin Qin; Jonas Schollenberger; Yuriko Suzuki; Manuel Taso; David L Thomas; Matthias J P van Osch; Joseph Woods; Moss Y Zhao; Lirong Yan; Ze Wang; Li Zhao; Thomas W Okell Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.737