Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (대한자기공명의과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Simultaneous Unwrapping Phase and Error Recovery from Inhomogeneity (SUPER) for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Human Brain

  • Received : 2017.08.22
  • Accepted : 2017.11.05
  • Published : 2018.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The effect of global inhomogeneity on quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) was investigated. A technique referred to as Simultaneous Unwrapping Phase with Error Recovery from inhomogeneity (SUPER) is suggested as a preprocessing to QSM to remove global field inhomogeneity-induced phase by polynomial fitting. Materials and Methods: The effect of global inhomogeneity on QSM was investigated by numerical simulations. Three types of global inhomogeneity were added to the tissue susceptibility phase, and the root mean square error (RMSE) in the susceptibility map was evaluated. In-vivo QSM imaging with volunteers was carried out for 3.0T and 7.0T MRI systems to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method. Results: The SUPER technique removed harmonic and non-harmonic global phases. Previously only the harmonic phase was removed by the background phase removal method. The global phase contained a non-harmonic phase due to various experimental and physiological causes, which degraded a susceptibility map. The RMSE in the susceptibility map increased under the influence of global inhomogeneity; while the error was consistent, irrespective of the global inhomogeneity, if the inhomogeneity was corrected by the SUPER technique. In-vivo QSM imaging with volunteers at 3.0T and 7.0T MRI systems showed better definition in small vascular structures and reduced fluctuation and non-uniformity in the frontal lobes, where field inhomogeneity was more severe. Conclusion: Correcting global inhomogeneity using the SUPER technique is an effective way to obtain an accurate susceptibility map on QSM method. Since the susceptibility variations are small quantities in the brain tissue, correction of the inhomogeneity is an essential element for obtaining an accurate QSM.

Keywords

References

  1. Salomir R, de Senneville BD, Moonen CT. A fast calculation method for magnetic field inhomogeneity due to an arbitrary distribution of bulk susceptibility. Concepts in Magn Reson Part B (Magn Reson Engineering) 2003;19B:26-34 https://doi.org/10.1002/cmr.b.10083
  2. Cho ZH. Review of recent advancement of ultra high field magnetic resonance imaging: from anatomy to tractography. Investig Magn Reson Imaging 2016;20:141-151
  3. Haacke EM, Xu Y, Cheng YC, Reichenbach JR. Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI). Magn Reson Med 2004;52:612-618 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20198
  4. Sehgal V, Delproposto Z, Haacke EM, et al. Clinical applications of neuroimaging with susceptibility-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:439-450
  5. Mittal S, Wu Z, Neelavalli J, Haacke EM. Susceptibilityweighted imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications, part 2. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:232-252
  6. Adachi Y, Sato N, Saito Y, et al. Usefulness of SWI for the detection of iron in the motor cortex in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2015;25:443-451 https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12127
  7. Santhosh K, Kesavadas C, Thomas B, Gupta AK, Thamburaj K, Kapilamoorthy TR. Susceptibility weighted imaging: a new tool in magnetic resonance imaging of stroke. Clin Radiol 2009;64:74-83 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.04.022
  8. Zhang J, Zhang Y, Wang J, et al. Characterizing iron deposition in Parkinson's disease using susceptibilityweighted imaging: an in vivo MR study. Brain Res 2010;1330:124-130 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.036
  9. Gho SM, Liu C, Li W, et al. Susceptibility map-weighted imaging (SMWI) for neuroimaging. Magn Reson Med 2014;72:337-346 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.24920
  10. de Rochefort L, Liu T, Kressler B, et al. Quantitative susceptibility map reconstruction from MR phase data using bayesian regularization: validation and application to brain imaging. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:194-206
  11. Li W, Wu B, Liu C. Quantitative susceptibility mapping of human brain reflects spatial variation in tissue composition. Neuroimage 2011;55:1645-1656 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.088
  12. Schweser F, Deistung A, Lehr BW, Reichenbach JR. Quantitative imaging of intrinsic magnetic tissue properties using MRI signal phase: an approach to in vivo brain iron metabolism? Neuroimage 2011;54:2789-2807 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.070
  13. Chen W, Zhu W, Kovanlikaya I, et al. Intracranial calcifications and hemorrhages: characterization with quantitative susceptibility mapping. Radiology 2014;270:496-505 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122640
  14. Yao B, Li TQ, Gelderen P, Shmueli K, de Zwart JA, Duyn JH. Susceptibility contrast in high field MRI of human brain as a function of tissue iron content. Neuroimage 2009;44:1259-1266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.029
  15. Xu B, Liu T, Spincemaille P, Prince M, Wang Y. Flow compensated quantitative susceptibility mapping for venous oxygenation imaging. Magn Reson Med 2014;72: 438-445 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.24937
  16. Romeo F, Hoult DI. Magnet field profiling: analysis and correcting coil design. Magn Reson Med 1984;1:44-65 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910010107
  17. Raj D, Anderson AW, Gore JC. Respiratory effects in human functional magnetic resonance imaging due to bulk susceptibility changes. Phys Med Biol 2001;46:3331-3340 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/46/12/318
  18. Van de Moortele PF, Pfeuffer J, Glover GH, Ugurbil K, Hu X. Respiration-induced B0 fluctuations and their spatial distribution in the human brain at 7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:888-895 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.10145
  19. Liu T, Khalidov I, de Rochefort L, et al. A novel background field removal method for MRI using projection onto dipole fields (PDF). NMR Biomed 2011;24:1129-1136 https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1670
  20. Zhou D, Liu T, Spincemaille P, Wang Y. Background field removal by solving the Laplacian boundary value problem. NMR Biomed 2014;27:312-319 https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3064
  21. Langkammer C, Schweser F, Krebs N, et al. Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) as a means to measure brain iron? A post mortem validation study. Neuroimage 2012;62:1593-1599 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.049
  22. Ahn CB, Jo JM, Cho ZH. Magnetic field homogeneity correction algorithm using pseudoinversion formula for NMR imaging. Rev Sci Instrum 1986;57:683-688 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1138890
  23. Jezzard P, Balaban RS. Correction for geometric distortion in echo planar images from B0 field variations. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:65-73 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910340111
  24. Yang YJ, Park J, Yoon JH, Ahn CB. Field inhomogeneity correction using partial differential phases in magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol 2015;60:4075-4088 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/10/4075
  25. Haacke EM, Liu S, Buch S, Zheng W, Wu D, Ye Y. Quantitative susceptibility mapping: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging 2015;33:1-25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2014.09.004
  26. Schofield MA, Zhu Y. Fast phase unwrapping algorithm for interferometric applications. Opt Lett 2003;28:1194-1196 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.28.001194
  27. Cusack R, Papadakis N. New robust 3-D phase unwrapping algorithms: application to magnetic field mapping and undistorting echoplanar images. Neuroimage 2002;16:754-764
  28. Feng W, Neelavalli J, Haacke EM. Catalytic multiecho phase unwrapping scheme (CAMPUS) in multiecho gradient echo imaging: removing phase wraps on a voxel-by-voxel basis. Magn Reson Med 2013;70:117-126 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.24457
  29. Wang Y, Liu T. Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): decoding MRI data for a tissue magnetic biomarker. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:82-101 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25358
  30. Bilgic B, Chatnuntawech I, Langkammer C, Setsompop K. Sparse methods for quantitative susceptibility mapping; Wavelets and Sparsity XVI, SPIE, San Diego, USA, 2015;9597:959711-959711-1
  31. Kressler B, de Rochefort L, Liu T, Spincemaille P, Jiang Q, Wang Y. Nonlinear regularization for per voxel estimation of magnetic susceptibility distributions from MRI field maps. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:273-281 https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2009.2023787
  32. Bilgic B, Fan AP, Polimeni JR, et al. Fast quantitative susceptibility mapping with L1-regularization and automatic parameter selection. Magn Reson Med 2014;72:1444-1459 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25029
  33. Dong J, Liu T, Chen F, et al. Simultaneous phase unwrapping and removal of chemical shift (SPURS) using graph cuts: application in quantitative susceptibility mapping. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015;34:531-540