Zhao Wei1, Ya-Jun Ma2, Hyungseok Jang3, Wenhui Yang4, Jiang Du5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, CA, United States; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China; Institute of Electrical Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. Electronic address: weizhao@mail.iee.ac.cn. 2. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: yam013@ucsd.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: h4jang@ucsd.edu. 4. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China; Institute of Electrical Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. Electronic address: yangwenh@mail.iee.ac.cn. 5. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: jiangdu@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of a new method for measuring T1 of short T2 species based on an adiabatic inversion recovery-prepared three-dimensional ultrashort echo time Cones (3D IR-UTE-Cones) sequence. METHODS: T1 values for short T2 species were quantified using 3D IR-UTE-Cones data acquired with different repetition times (TRs) and inversion times (TIs). An inversion efficiency factor Q was introduced into the fitting model to accurately calculate T1 values for short T2 species. Experiments were performed on twelve MnCl2 aqueous solution phantoms with a wide range of T1 values and T2* values on a 3 T clinical MR system to verify the efficacy of the proposed method. For comparison, a variable flip angle UTE (VFA-UTE) sequence, a variable TR UTE (VTR-UTE) sequence, and a conventional 2D IR fast spin echo (IR-FSE) sequence were also used to quantify T1 values of those phantoms. T1 values were compared between all performed sequences. RESULTS: The proposed 3D IR-UTE-Cones method provided higher contrast images of short T2 phantoms and measured much shorter T1 values than the VFA-UTE, VTR-UTE and 2D IR-FSE methods. T1 values as short as 2.95 ms could be measured by the 3D IR-UTE-Cones sequence. The 3D IR-UTE-Cones methods with different TRs were applied to different ranges of T1 measurement, and the scan time was significantly decreased by using 5 TIs along the recovery curves to perform fitting with comparable accuracy. CONCLUSION: The 3D IR-UTE-Cones sequence could accurately measure short T1 values while providing high contrast images of short T2 species.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of a new method for measuring T1 of short T2 species based on an adiabatic inversion recovery-prepared three-dimensional ultrashort echo time Cones (3D IR-UTE-Cones) sequence. METHODS: T1 values for short T2 species were quantified using 3D IR-UTE-Cones data acquired with different repetition times (TRs) and inversion times (TIs). An inversion efficiency factor Q was introduced into the fitting model to accurately calculate T1 values for short T2 species. Experiments were performed on twelve MnCl2 aqueous solution phantoms with a wide range of T1 values and T2* values on a 3 T clinical MR system to verify the efficacy of the proposed method. For comparison, a variable flip angle UTE (VFA-UTE) sequence, a variable TR UTE (VTR-UTE) sequence, and a conventional 2D IR fast spin echo (IR-FSE) sequence were also used to quantify T1 values of those phantoms. T1 values were compared between all performed sequences. RESULTS: The proposed 3D IR-UTE-Cones method provided higher contrast images of short T2 phantoms and measured much shorter T1 values than the VFA-UTE, VTR-UTE and 2D IR-FSE methods. T1 values as short as 2.95 ms could be measured by the 3D IR-UTE-Cones sequence. The 3D IR-UTE-Cones methods with different TRs were applied to different ranges of T1 measurement, and the scan time was significantly decreased by using 5 TIs along the recovery curves to perform fitting with comparable accuracy. CONCLUSION: The 3D IR-UTE-Cones sequence could accurately measure short T1 values while providing high contrast images of short T2 species.
Authors: Ya-Jun Ma; Xing Lu; Michael Carl; Yanchun Zhu; Nikolaus M Szeverenyi; Graeme M Bydder; Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hugo Vrenken; Jeroen J G Geurts; Dirk L Knol; L Noor van Dijk; Vincenzo Dattola; Bas Jasperse; Ronald A van Schijndel; Chris H Polman; Jonas A Castelijns; Frederik Barkhof; Petra J W Pouwels Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Konstantinos Papadopoulos; Daniel J Tozer; Leonora Fisniku; Daniel R Altmann; Gerard Davies; Waqar Rashid; Alan J Thompson; David H Miller; Declan T Chard Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Nikola Stikov; Mathieu Boudreau; Ives R Levesque; Christine L Tardif; Joëlle K Barral; G Bruce Pike Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Y B Lv; P Chandrasekharan; Y Li; X L Liu; J P Avila; Y Yang; K H Chuang; Xing-Jie Liang; J Ding Journal: J Mater Chem B Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 6.331
Authors: Jinjin Zhang; Ryan Chamberlain; Michael Etheridge; Djaudat Idiyatullin; Curtis Corum; John Bischof; Michael Garwood Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 4.668