Juan Liu1 and Kevin Koch1,2
1Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University and Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 2Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States
Synopsis
Quantitative Susceptibility
Mapping (QSM) can quantitatively estimate tissue magnetic susceptibility, which
enables differentiation of diamagnetic calcifications and paramagnetic
hemorrhages. The translation of QSM into clinical practice faces technical
implementation challenges, particularly the QSM inversion process. In the
clinical practice current QSM post-processing techniques are constrained due to
large slick thicknesses, which result in compromised background field removal
and streaking artifacts in QSM images. To address these limitations, here we a
apply a deep-learning-based QSM pipeline, including: (1) a 2D neural network to
construct brain masks, (2) a background field removal deep neural network
reveal local tissue fields, and (3) a QSM inversion deep neural network. Nine
patients with stroke were scanned using a clinical susceptibility-weighted MR
protocol were used to demonstrate that the proposed clinically viable QSM
workflow can effectively detect microbleeds and differentiate calcifications
from hemorrhages.
Purpose
Susceptibility Weighted
Imaging (SWI) can effectively detect hemorrhages using susceptibility contrast,
but suffers from blooming effects and struggles to differentiate calcifications
from microbleeds or iron deposits1. Quantitative Susceptibility
Mapping (QSM), in estimating the underlying tissue magnetic
susceptibilities, is able to differentiate diamagnetic calcifications from
paramagnetic hemorrhages2,3. Current approaches to solve the QSM inverse problem either suffer from spatial
streaking artifacts or require long computation times. As a result, QSM clinical translation is hindered. Here, we proposed a deep-learning QSM
pipeline, which includes (1) a 2D neural network to construct brain masks, (2)
a background field removal deep neural network to reveal local tissue fields, and
(3) a QSM inversion deep neural network. Methods
-
Datasets: Nine patients with stroke were scanned using
a clinical susceptibility-weighted MR protocol on a 3T MRI scanner, with data
acquisition parameters: in-plane data matrix = 288x224, FOV = 22 cm, slice
thickness = 3.0 mm, parallel imaging factors = 2x1, number of slices = 46-54, number of
echoes = 7, echo spacing = 4.1ms, flip angle = 15˚, TR = 39.7ms, total scan
time of roughly 2.5 minutes.
- Data Processing: SWI images were processed
by vendor reconstruction algorithms. The raw k-space data were saved for
offline QSM processing, which is illustrated in Fig.1. Complex multi-echo images were reconstructed
from raw k-space data. The magnitude and phase images were calculated using the
real and imaginary images. Laplacian-based phase unwrapping was applied to
remove the phase wraps. The brain masks were obtained from the magnitude images
using a locally developed brain extraction neural network. Using the unwrapped phase maps and brain masks
as inputs, the background removal neural network output the tissue field maps. Finally, our
Approximated Susceptibility through Parcellated Encoder-decoder Networks (ASPEN) deep learning model was applied to produce
the final susceptibility maps. On
conventional CPU hardware, this entire pipeline requires 1-2 minutes, on routine GPU hardware, the pipeline can be performed in
seconds.
- Evaluation: The conventional SWI
images and corresponding QSM images were evaluated in comparison. For each
case, the number of hypointense regions in SWI were manually counted. In the
corresponding QSM images, regions of hypointense and hyperintense values,
indicating low susceptibility and high susceptibility values, were labeled and
counted.
Results and Discussion
In Fig.2, the data
processing results using above methods on one subject are shown in three
(axial/coronal/sagittal) views. The local field maps (fourth column) after
background removal show homogeneous background removal. QSM images shows high
image quality with fine details and negligible streaking artifacts.
In Fig.3,
the SWI and QSM images of one stroke patient are illustrated,
where QSM can effectively detect the small microbleeds identified within the
SWI images. This indicates that the neural network pipeline is able to produce
high quality QSM maps using a routine clinical SWI protocol. Compared to typical research QSM scans,
clinical SWI protocols have shorter data acquisition durations (lower
resolution) and thicker slice thickness (less isotropic).
In Fig.4, the SWI and
QSM images of one stroke patient are displayed. The cerebral microbleeds and
calcifications all appear as black hypointense regions in SWI images, making it
difficult to differentiate one from another. In QSM images, microbleeds (paramagnetic) show as bright/hyperintense regions, while calcifications
(diamagnetic) are
dark/hypointense regions. Therefore, QSM can effectively differentiate
calcifications from real microbleeds.
In Table.1, the number of
dark/hypointense regions found in SWI images and the number of dark/hypointense
or bright/hyperintense regions found in QSM images are summarized. In five
stroke patients, dark/hypointense regions were found in SWI and QSM images,
indicating they are likely to be calcifications. The crucial finding from this study is that
within 9 subjects, a total of 10 hypointense regions in SWI were confirmed
using QSM to be calcifications, not microbleeds. This accounts for over 10% of the
microbleeds that could have been identified using SWI alone.
Conclusion
A clinically viable deep learning based QSM workflow was demonstrated on a cohort of clinical stroke SWI datasets. The QSM images reconstructed were of sufficient quality to allow for meaningful differential quantification of calcifications and microbleeds. These preliminary results show that clinical use of QSM on stroke patients can improve sensitivity, specificity and allow for more accurate measurements of total lesion load when compared with SWI. Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Haacke EM, Xu Y, Cheng YCN and Reichenbach JR. Susceptibility
weighted imaging (SWI). Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2004; 52 (3):
612-618.
2. Wang Y and Liu T. Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM):
decoding MRI data for a tissue magnetic biomarker. Magnetic resonance in
medicine. 2015; 73 (1): 82-101.
3. Chen W, Zhu W, Kovanlikaya I, et al. Intracranial
calcifications and hemorrhages: characterization with quantitative
susceptibility mapping. Radiology. 2014; 270 (2): 496-505.