Yuxi Pang1, Dariya I Malyarenko2, Ghoncheh Amouzandeh2, Enzo Barberi3, Michael Cole3, Axel Vom Endt4, Johannes Peeters5, Ek T Tan6, Thomas L Chenevert2. 1. Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. Electronic address: yuxipang@umich.edu. 2. Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 3. Modus Medical Devices Inc., London, ON, CA, Canada. 4. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, DE, Germany. 5. MR Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare, Best, NL, Netherlands. 6. Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To empirically corroborate vendor-provided gradient nonlinearity (GNL) characteristics and demonstrate efficient GNL bias correction for human brain apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) across 3T MR systems and spatial locations. METHODS: Spatial distortion vector fields (DVF) were mapped in 3D using a surface fiducial array phantom for individual gradient channels on three 3T MR platforms from different vendors. Measured DVF were converted into empirical 3D GNL tensors and compared with their theoretical counterparts derived from vendor-provided spherical harmonic (SPH) coefficients. To illustrate spatial impact of GNL on ADC, diffusion weighted imaging using three orthogonal gradient directions was performed on a volunteer brain positioned at isocenter (as a reference) and offset superiorly by 10-17 cm (>10% predicted GNL bias). The SPH tensor-based GNL correction was applied to individual DWI gradient directions, and derived ADC was compared with low-bias reference for human brain white matter (WM) ROIs. RESULTS: Empiric and predicted GNL errors were comparable for all three studied 3T MR systems, with <1.0% differences in the median and width of spatial histograms for individual GNL tensor elements. Median (±width) of ADC (10-3mm2/s) histograms measured at isocenter in WM reference ROIs from three MR systems were: 0.73 ± 0.11, 0.71 ± 0.14, 0.74 ± 0.17, and at off-isocenters (before versus after GNL correction) were respectively 0.63 ± 0.14 versus 0.72 ± 0.11, 0.53 ± 0.16 versus 0.74 ± 0.18, and 0.65 ± 0.16 versus 0.76 ± 0.18. CONCLUSION: The phantom-based spatial distortion measurements validated vendor-provided gradient fields, and accurate WM ADC was recovered regardless of spatial locations and clinical MR platforms using system-specific tensor-based GNL correction for routine DWI. Crown
PURPOSE: To empirically corroborate vendor-provided gradient nonlinearity (GNL) characteristics and demonstrate efficient GNL bias correction for human brain apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) across 3T MR systems and spatial locations. METHODS: Spatial distortion vector fields (DVF) were mapped in 3D using a surface fiducial array phantom for individual gradient channels on three 3T MR platforms from different vendors. Measured DVF were converted into empirical 3D GNL tensors and compared with their theoretical counterparts derived from vendor-provided spherical harmonic (SPH) coefficients. To illustrate spatial impact of GNL on ADC, diffusion weighted imaging using three orthogonal gradient directions was performed on a volunteer brain positioned at isocenter (as a reference) and offset superiorly by 10-17 cm (>10% predicted GNL bias). The SPH tensor-based GNL correction was applied to individual DWI gradient directions, and derived ADC was compared with low-bias reference for human brain white matter (WM) ROIs. RESULTS: Empiric and predicted GNL errors were comparable for all three studied 3T MR systems, with <1.0% differences in the median and width of spatial histograms for individual GNL tensor elements. Median (±width) of ADC (10-3mm2/s) histograms measured at isocenter in WM reference ROIs from three MR systems were: 0.73 ± 0.11, 0.71 ± 0.14, 0.74 ± 0.17, and at off-isocenters (before versus after GNL correction) were respectively 0.63 ± 0.14 versus 0.72 ± 0.11, 0.53 ± 0.16 versus 0.74 ± 0.18, and 0.65 ± 0.16 versus 0.76 ± 0.18. CONCLUSION: The phantom-based spatial distortion measurements validated vendor-provided gradient fields, and accurate WM ADC was recovered regardless of spatial locations and clinical MR platforms using system-specific tensor-based GNL correction for routine DWI. Crown
Authors: Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Zachary W Slavens; Kevin F King; Christopher J Hardy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David C Newitt; Ek T Tan; Lisa J Wilmes; Thomas L Chenevert; John Kornak; Luca Marinelli; Nola Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: E M Palacios; A J Martin; M A Boss; F Ezekiel; Y S Chang; E L Yuh; M J Vassar; D M Schnyer; C L MacDonald; K L Crawford; A Irimia; A W Toga; P Mukherjee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dariya I Malyarenko; David Newitt; Lisa J Wilmes; Alina Tudorica; Karl G Helmer; Lori R Arlinghaus; Michael A Jacobs; Guido Jajamovich; Bachir Taouli; Thomas E Yankeelov; Wei Huang; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Guoying Liu; Dow Mu Koh; Thomas L Chenevert; Harriet C Thoeny; Taro Takahara; Andrew Dzik-Jurasz; Brian D Ross; Marc Van Cauteren; David Collins; Dima A Hammoud; Gordon J S Rustin; Bachir Taouli; Peter L Choyke Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Zheng Zhang; David C Newitt; Jessica E Gibbs; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Justin Romanoff; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi R Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: N M deSouza; J M Winfield; J C Waterton; A Weller; M-V Papoutsaki; S J Doran; D J Collins; L Fournier; D Sullivan; T Chenevert; A Jackson; M Boss; S Trattnig; Y Liu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joanna Podgórska; Katarzyna Pasicz; Witold Skrzyński; Bogumił Gołębiewski; Piotr Kuś; Jakub Jasieniak; Anna Kiliszczyk; Agnieszka Rogowska; Thomas Benkert; Jakub Pałucki; Iwona Grabska; Ewa Fabiszewska; Beata Jagielska; Paweł Kukołowicz; Andrzej Cieszanowski Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Yuxi Pang; Dariya I Malyarenko; Lisa J Wilmes; Ajit Devaraj; Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Axel Vom Endt; Johannes Peeters; Michael A Jacobs; David C Newitt; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-02-04