Synopsis
In a recent study, we demonstrated
the feasibility of the COKE (Coherent K-t-space EPSI) sequence at 3T MRI to halve
acquisition time or double the spectral width (SW) compared to EPSI. In this
study, we explored, on a phantom with mimicking brain properties, the benefits
of COKE at 7T for fast spectroscopic imaging; using an SW of 2500Hz to better
cover the metabolites' frequency range. We
combined it with spatially selective inversion recovery (IR) using B1
phases optimization in 8-channels transmit coil to minimize the signal drop in
the center and to optimize the IR in the lipid region.
Introduction
In a recent study1, we
demonstrated the feasibility of the COKE (Coherent K-t-space EPSI) sequence2 at 3T MRI to halve acquisition time or double the spectral width
(SW) compared to EPSI3-5. Such EPSI-based sequence offer fast
spectral-spatial acquisition, which is beneficial for structural and functional
research. The higher-SW capability is especially important at ultra-high fields
(≥7T) in order to cover the full 1H spectrum of metabolites. The
restricted-SW in EPSI6 - limited by the available gradient amplitude
and slew-rate – is associated with the non-uniform zigzag sampling pattern. A
common method to overcome the SW restriction is temporal interleaving, however,
this prolongs the scan time. In COKE, “blipped” phase encoding (PE) gradients
are added in between readout lines (see Fig.1) in order to produce coherent
phases between the k-t space readout lines (for a given PE). Hence, the non-uniform zigzag is resolved and the
resulting SW is defined by the gradients limitations. Another challenge of 1H
MRSI is lipid signal contamination. Many
methods have been developed to cope with this matter7-9, including
inversion recovery (IR) for lipids, outer volume suppression, and dedicated
spatially selective pulses. IR is commonly used, utilizing the short T1
of the lipids, but it further reduces the already low signal of the
metabolites. Several works have shown the application of B1 shimming
of multi-channel transmit coils for spatially-selective IR10,11,
thus minimizing the signal drop in the region of interest. In this study, we
explored the benefits of COKE for 1H metabolites imaging at 7T. An
IR pulse was implemented to enable phases’ optimization in 8-channels transmit
coil to minimize the signal drop in the center and to optimize the IR in the
lipid region. Methods
Pulse sequences: The study included EPSI and COKE implementations on a
7T MRI scanner (Terra, Siemens, Erlangen ) – see Fig. 1 for detailed sequence
schemes. The experiments were conducted with Nova 8Tx-32Rx head coil. The IR
pulse is sinc-based pulse with separate control of the phase for each channel.The
water suppression used in this study is based on an in-house 256 ms long
optimized VAPOR-like model, consisting of six frequency selective pulses12.
A further optimization of a water suppression, better tuned for 7T, is still
required. B1 shimming
optimization: A B1 mapping using Siemens’ tfl_b1map
sequence was acquired. The transmit phase per channel was optimized using an
unconstrained nonlinear minimization (“fminsearch” in Matlab). The optimization
inputs included per-channel B1 amplitude and phase distribution, and
two regions, one in which to minimize the flip-angle of the IR and one in which
to maximize the IR. Phantom: A dedicated phantom was prepared to mimic
brain imaging at 7T. The phantom was
based on the fBIRN13 recipe to include relevant electrical conductivity
and T1 parameters in the brain, as well as metabolite content for
brain imaging. The metabolite content included 10mM
L-Glutamic acid, 10mM Creatine 8mM myo-Inositol, 2mM GABA, 2mM Choline
chloride, 5mM Choline chloride, and 5mM Sodium lactate 12.5mM NAA. To improve
the similarity to brain 7T imaging, a head-shaped plastic mannequin was
used as a container for the phantom. Since the above phantom does not contain
lipids, spatially selective IR was also tested on oil phantom. The scan parameters are summarized in the relevant figure
captions. Results
Fig. 2
shows (top) the head-shaped phantom used and (bottom) a comparison of EPSI and
COKE (without IR) on a single
slice. For the same scan time, and readout duration, COKE’s SW is double (2500Hz for COKE and 1250Hz for
EPSI). Fig. 3 shows two cases of optimizing B1 phases for spatially
selective IR, while Fig. 4 shows the effects of these IR pulses on an
oil phantom. Fig. 5 shows the results of COKE with and without spatially
selective IR. The optimized spatially selective IR had only small effect on the
NAA intensity compared to significant drop using the non-selective IR. Conclusions
We have demonstrated, on a
phantom with mimicking brain properties, the benefits of COKE at 7T for fast imaging;
achieving an SW of 2500Hz to better cover the metabolites' frequency range.
Scan duration was 2.13 minutes for in-plane resolution of 6x3 mm2
and 15 mm thickness. In addition, we have shown a spatially selective IR pulse,
optimized for two regions: minimizing the IR flip-angle in one, while
maximizing it in the other. Yet, in more general cases the IR pulse
optimization using only B1 shimming can be limited, mostly due to the transmit
channels' distribution. Next, we plan to examine the fast spectral imaging
using COKE in human volunteer study.Acknowledgements
We are
grateful to Siemens support, especially to Amir Seginer, Robin Heidemann and
Rene Gumbrecht for assistance with B1 mapping and shimming
capabilities. We are grateful to Assaf Tal for providing the MRSI source code
from which COKE was developed.References
[1] Schmidt R. et.al. 2018, Proc.
Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med., 1059 [2] Webb P., et.al. (1989) Magn. Reson. Med.,
12(3), 306-315 [3] Mansfield, P. (1984) Magn. Reson. Med., 1(3), 370-386,
[4] Mulkern, R. V. Conc Magn Reson, 13(4), 213-237, [5] Posse, S., et.al (1994) Radiology, 192(3),
733-738, [6] Posse, et.al. (2013) J. Magn. Reson.
Imag., 37(6), 1301-1325, [7] Balchandani,
P., et.al. (2008). Magn
Reson Med, 59(5), 980–988. [8] Boer, V. O., et.al. (2012). Magn Reson Med, 68(3),
662–670. [9] Van de Moortele, P.-F et. al. (2005). Magn Reson Med, 54(6),
1503–1518. [10] Emir, U. E.,et.al. (2012). NMR
in Biomed, 25(1), 152–160, [11] Hetherington H.P., et.al., (2009) Magn Reson
Med,63(1), 9-19.[12] Osnat Volovyk et.al. Magn Reson Med, 79(5),2481-2490. [13]
https://www.nitrc.org/frs/download.php/275/fBIRN_phantom_qaProcedures.pdf