Eugene Milshteyn1,2, Georgy Guryev3, Angel Torrado-Carvajal1,2,4, Elfar Adalsteinsson3,5,6, Jacob K White3, Lawrence L Wald1,2,6, Bastien Guerin1,2. 1. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 4. Medical Image Analysis and Biometry Laboratory, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 5. Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 6. Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We propose a fast, patient-specific workflow for on-line specific absorption rate (SAR) supervision. An individualized electromagnetic model is created while the subject is on the table, followed by rapid SAR estimates for that individual. Our goal is an improved correspondence between the patient and model, reducing reliance on general anatomical body models. METHODS: A 3D fat-water 3T acquisition (~2 minutes) is automatically segmented using a computer vision algorithm (~1 minute) into what we found to be the most important electromagnetic tissue classes: air, bone, fat, and soft tissues. We then compute the individual's EM field exposure and global and local SAR matrices using a fast electromagnetic integral equation solver. We assess the approach in 10 volunteers and compare to the SAR seen in a standard generic body model (Duke). RESULTS: The on-the-table workflow averaged 7'44″. Simulation of the simplified Duke models confirmed that only air, bone, fat, and soft tissue classes are needed to estimate global and local SAR with an error of 6.7% and 2.7%, respectively, compared to the full model. In contrast, our volunteers showed a 16.0% and 20.3% population variability in global and local SAR, respectively, which was mostly underestimated by the Duke model. CONCLUSION: Timely construction and deployment of a patient-specific model is computationally feasible. The benefit of resolving the population heterogeneity compared favorably to the modest modeling error incurred. This suggests that individualized SAR estimates can improve electromagnetic safety in MRI and possibly reduce conservative safety margins that account for patient-model mismatch, especially in non-standard patients.
PURPOSE: We propose a fast, patient-specific workflow for on-line specific absorption rate (SAR) supervision. An individualized electromagnetic model is created while the subject is on the table, followed by rapid SAR estimates for that individual. Our goal is an improved correspondence between the patient and model, reducing reliance on general anatomical body models. METHODS: A 3D fat-water 3T acquisition (~2 minutes) is automatically segmented using a computer vision algorithm (~1 minute) into what we found to be the most important electromagnetic tissue classes: air, bone, fat, and soft tissues. We then compute the individual's EM field exposure and global and local SAR matrices using a fast electromagnetic integral equation solver. We assess the approach in 10 volunteers and compare to the SAR seen in a standard generic body model (Duke). RESULTS: The on-the-table workflow averaged 7'44″. Simulation of the simplified Duke models confirmed that only air, bone, fat, and soft tissue classes are needed to estimate global and local SAR with an error of 6.7% and 2.7%, respectively, compared to the full model. In contrast, our volunteers showed a 16.0% and 20.3% population variability in global and local SAR, respectively, which was mostly underestimated by the Duke model. CONCLUSION: Timely construction and deployment of a patient-specific model is computationally feasible. The benefit of resolving the population heterogeneity compared favorably to the modest modeling error incurred. This suggests that individualized SAR estimates can improve electromagnetic safety in MRI and possibly reduce conservative safety margins that account for patient-model mismatch, especially in non-standard patients.
Authors: Ulrich Katscher; Tobias Voigt; Christian Findeklee; Peter Vernickel; Kay Nehrke; Olaf Dössel Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Javier Vera-Olmos; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Onofrio A Catalano; Manuel A Morales; Justin Margolin; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Norberto Malpica; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hanno Homann; Ingmar Graesslin; Holger Eggers; Kay Nehrke; Peter Vernickel; Ulrich Katscher; Olaf Dössel; Peter Börnert Journal: MAGMA Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Bastien Guérin; Kawin Setsompop; Huihui Ye; Benedikt A Poser; Andrew V Stenger; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adam C Zelinski; Leonardo M Angelone; Vivek K Goyal; Giorgio Bonmassar; Elfar Adalsteinsson; Lawrence L Wald Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Filiz Yetisir; Esra Abaci Turk; Bastien Guerin; Borjan A Gagoski; P Ellen Grant; Elfar Adalsteinsson; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ilias I Giannakopoulos; Georgy D Guryev; José E C Serrallés; Ioannis P Georgakis; Luca Daniel; Jacob K White; Riccardo Lattanzi Journal: IEEE Trans Antennas Propag Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 4.388
Authors: Wyger M Brink; Sahar Yousefi; Prernna Bhatnagar; Rob F Remis; Marius Staring; Andrew G Webb Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.737