Literature DB >> 32491224

Investigating the accuracy and precision of TE-dependent versus multi-echo QSM using Laplacian-based methods at 3 T.

Emma Biondetti1,2, Anita Karsa2, David L Thomas3,4, Karin Shmueli2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Multi-echo gradient-recalled echo acquisitions for QSM enable optimizing the SNR for several tissue types through multi-echo (TE) combination or investigating temporal variations in the susceptibility (potentially reflecting tissue microstructure) by calculating one QSM image at each TE (TE-dependent QSM). In contrast with multi-echo QSM, applying Laplacian-based methods (LBMs) for phase unwrapping and background field removal to single TEs could introduce nonlinear temporal variations (independent of tissue microstructure) into the measured susceptibility. Here, we aimed to compare the effect of LBMs on the QSM susceptibilities in TE-dependent versus multi-echo QSM.
METHODS: TE-dependent recalled echo data simulated in a numerical head phantom and gradient-recalled echo images acquired at 3 T in 10 healthy volunteers. Several QSM pipelines were tested, including four distinct LBMs: sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP), variable-radius sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (V-SHARP), Laplacian boundary value background field removal (LBV), and one-step total generalized variation (TGV). Results from distinct pipelines were compared using visual inspection, summary statistics of susceptibility in deep gray matter/white matter/venous regions of interest, and, in the healthy volunteers, regional susceptibility bias analysis and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: Multi-echo versus TE-dependent QSM had higher regional accuracy, especially in high-susceptibility regions and at shorter TEs. Everywhere except in the veins, a processing pipeline incorporating TGV provided the most temporally stable TE-dependent QSM results with an accuracy similar to multi-echo QSM.
CONCLUSIONS: For TE-dependent QSM, carefully choosing LBMs can minimize the introduction of LBM-related nonlinear temporal susceptibility variations.
© 2020 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  TE-dependent QSM; magnetic resonance imaging; multi-echo QSM; quantitative susceptibility mapping; single-echo QSM

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32491224     DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28331

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  3 in total

1.  QSMxT: Robust masking and artifact reduction for quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Ashley Wilton Stewart; Simon Daniel Robinson; Kieran O'Brien; Jin Jin; Georg Widhalm; Gilbert Hangel; Angela Walls; Jonathan Goodwin; Korbinian Eckstein; Monique Tourell; Catherine Morgan; Aswin Narayanan; Markus Barth; Steffen Bollmann
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  QSM reconstruction challenge 2.0: A realistic in silico head phantom for MRI data simulation and evaluation of susceptibility mapping procedures.

Authors:  José P Marques; Jakob Meineke; Carlos Milovic; Berkin Bilgic; Kwok-Shing Chan; Renaud Hedouin; Wietske van der Zwaag; Christian Langkammer; Ferdinand Schweser
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Multi-echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla.

Authors:  Emma Biondetti; Anita Karsa; Francesco Grussu; Marco Battiston; Marios C Yiannakas; David L Thomas; Karin Shmueli
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 3.737

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.