Rasim Boyacioglu1, Debra McGivney1, Dan Ma1, Yun Jiang1, and Mark Griswold1
1Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States
Synopsis
Magnetic
Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) maps various tissue properties and system
parameters simultaneously. MRF time series, which are matched to a
precalculated dictionary, are often obtained with fast acquisition of low
resolution images with undersampled spiral trajectories using a regular
sampling pattern. In this work, we propose to order a set of spiral
trajectories based on dictionary variance instead of the standard sequential or
golden-angle ordering. Phantom and in vivo results show that the variance based
optimized order converges faster to expected true values. The optimized order
does not limit other MRF optimization approaches and can be applied to any MRF
sequence.
Introduction
Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF ) is a
quantitative tissue property mapping technique1. In MRF acquired
signal evolutions shaped by pseudo-random flip angles and repetition times are
matched to a set of expected signal evolutions in a dictionary. The target
dictionary is free from system imperfections and any noise sources known to
effect MRF data acquisition. MRF data are typically acquired with heavily
undersampled spiral trajectories where the spiral arm rotation order is fixed
and repeated throughout data acquisition, using either a linear or golden-angle
approach. Thus, undersampling artifacts from reconstruction form cyclic
patterns in time which are not simulated in the dictionary. However, it is well
known that some parts of the signal evolution allow better separation between
the tissues than others, which could result in some interleaves with a greater
ability to distinguish different tissues than others, which could result in
residual artifacts in the final maps. Here we propose a new approach to reorder
spiral trajectories based on the variance across the tissue dimension of the dictionary
instead of a fixed order. This ensures similar separability for all spiral
readouts, and thus reduced artifacts.Methods
The first step in determining the optimized
order is to calculate the variance of the dictionary along the tissue dimension
at each time point (Figure 1c). While
there are potentially many ways to arrange these spirals, we chose a greedy
algorithm. Starting at the first timepoint, the next readout is assigned to the
spiral arm with the lowest cumulative variance. The cumulative variance is
updated and we move to the next timepoint.
If the dictionary variance is taken as a measure of the separability of
dictionary entries, the optimized order aims to distribute the separability
power evenly between spiral arms. Phantom2,3 and in vivo (with
IRB approval and after prior written consent) data were acquired using a FISP
based MRF acquisition4 at 3T scanner (Skyra, Siemens) using a
head coil with the following parameters; FA: 5°-75° (Figure 1a), 1.2x1.2x5 mm3 resolution, TR: 10-13 ms (Figure
1b), 2000 time points. Data were acquired twice with the same acquisition
parameters but with different spiral arm (n=48) orders; first with sequential
order (1,2,…48,1,2,…48,1,2,..) and then with variance optimized order. Data
were reconstructed retrospectively with fewer time points
(N=100/200/300/500/750/1000/1500/2000) to observe the effects of different
sampling choices.Results
Phantom
data results in Figure 2 and 3 show that the standard sequential order breaks
down with 100 time points whereas optimized order can still produce images with
minimal artifacts. If maps with 2000 time points are taken as gold standard,
difference maps can give some clues on the speed of convergence with different
spiral arm orders. In comparison to sequential ordering the optimized order consistently
achieved smaller differences with respect to full time series maps for both T1
and T2 across all the reconstructions with shorter time series (rows 2 and 4 in
Figure 2 and 3).
In vivo results do not immediately display a clear benefit such as observed
with phantom data. T1 (row 1&3) and T1 difference (row 2&4) maps in
Figure 4 are similar for all reconstructions. On the other hand, optimized
order converges faster for T2 for regions around CSF.Discussion
It
is important to note that the suggested variance based spiral arm ordering
scheme can be applied to any MRF FA and TR pattern combination. Once the
dictionary is calculated, signal differences for every time point will dictate
which spiral arm to acquire. This optimized order method also provides flexibility
on tuning the sensitivity of a given MRF sequence to certain tissue properties
by calculating variance with only certain parts of the dictionary. One can
focus on dictionary entries where T1 is fixed but T2 is allowed to vary to make
the acquisition more sensitive to T2. Optimized order does not limit or preclude
other types of MRF optimization. It can also be taken into account separately as
the last step after optimizing other MRF sequence parameters.Conclusion
The
acquisition order of precalculated spiral trajectories can be optimized by
considering dictionary variance along the tissue dimension for a given MRF
pulse sequence. The optimized order converges faster to expected tissue
property maps when tested for different levels of shortening of MRF time
series. Regardless of employing other optimization strategies and choice of
sequence parameters, optimized order can be applied to any MRF sequence.Acknowledgements
The
authors would like to acknowledge funding from Siemens Healthcare and NIH
grants 1R01EB016728-01A1 and 5R01EB017219-02.References
1.
Ma D, Gulani V, Seiberlich N, et al. Magnetic
resonance fingerprinting. Nature 2013;495: 187–192.
2. Russek SE, Boss M, et al.
Characterization of NIST/ISMRM MRI system phantom. In Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Melbourne, Australia, 2012. Abstract 2456.
3. https://collaborate.nist.gov/mriphantoms/bin/view/MriPhantoms/MRISystemPhantom
4. Jiang Y, Ma D, Seiberlich N, et al. MR Fingerprinting
Using Fast Imaging with Steady State Precession (FISP) with Spiral Readout.
Magn Reson Med 2015;74:1621-1631.