Satyam Ghodasara1, Yong Chen2, Mark Griswold2, Nicole Seiberlich3, and Vikas Gulani2
1Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, United States, 2Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States, 3Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States
Synopsis
To
make free-breathing liver perfusion quantification feasible for a clinical
timescale, acceleration of
both non-Cartesian parallel imaging reconstruction and non-rigid image
registration was performed with parallel computing techniques. Our results show
massively increased speed (12 minutes compared to >22.5 hours for standard
computations) with extremely minor differences in both image quality and
perfusion quantification.Purpose
There
are currently multiple free-breathing quantitative 3D liver perfusion imaging
techniques under development including GRASP
1 and
non-Cartesian through-time spiral GRAPPA
2. While these kinds of
completely free-breathing technologies show great potential in quantitative characterization
of focal liver lesions
3, application of these high spatiotemporal
acquisition methods in routine clinical scans is greatly limited by the
prolonged image processing times, which are often orders of magnitude longer
than the clinical scan session. While
the image reconstruction times are significantly shorter for the through-time
spiral GRAPPA technique compared to compressed sensing technologies, due to the
large number of volumes acquired in such a free-breathing acquisition, the
image reconstruction for these many volumes in MATLAB also requires
approximately 5-6 hours. Thus computing
is an important practical limitation to extending the technology for many
practical clinical settings. To make this technique feasible for more routine clinical use, the
objectives of this study were to 1) to accelerate image reconstruction using
C++ and 2) to accelerate
image registration using a new parallel image registration algorithm that is optimized
to run on GPUs.
Methods
The proposed image analysis methods were performed on
five image sets, two from asymptomatic subjects and
three from patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma. For each subject, time
series of 3D DCE-MRI images were obtained from a Siemens 3T Skyra scanner with
30 coil elements. A total of 100 to 120 volumes were acquired continuously in
approximately 4 min for each subject while the subjects were breathing freely.
Each volume includes 60 slices with an in-plane matrix size of 208×208 to
224×224.
To accelerate image reconstruction, the
whole process was implemented using C++ on a hybridized system with a multi-core
CPU (an Intel Xeon X5650 CPUs, 48GB of RAM) and a graphical processing unit
(GPU; NVIDIA Fermi M2090). The results were compared to those obtained using
MATLAB on a standalone desktop computer (Intel Xeon E5-2630 v2 CPUs, 128GB of
RAM).
To eliminate respiratory motion between
different volumes for perfusion quantification, non-rigid image registration
was performed with BROCCOLI, a parallel-processing image registration algorithm
that heavily employs GPU hardware
4. Both the speed and quality of
registration were compared to volumes registered with FMRIB's Software Library (FSL). Registration
using both algorithms was run on the same hardware configuration: CPU: Intel i5
4670K, 8GB of RAM; GPU: Nvidia GTX Titan X. The quality of the BROCCOLI
registered images to FSL registered images was quantified using the Dice
similarity coefficient (DSC), a commonly used measure of image similarity
5.
A dual-input single-compartment model was then applied
to retrieve liver perfusion parameters and the results were compared to those
obtained with the original processing methods.
Results and Discussion
Fig. 1 shows representative
post-contrast through-time spiral GRAPPA images reconstructed using both MATLAB
and C++ from a subject with metastatic breast cancer. While no
clear visual difference was observed in the images obtained from the two
methods, the image reconstruction time was reduced by 32 times with the C++
approach (Table 1) to approximately 10-11 minutes for the 100-120 volumes that
are acquired over 3-4 minutes for a free-breathing patient exam.
Fig. 2 shows the
effectiveness of using BROCCOLI to eliminate respiratory motion from the reformatted
coronal view. The mean DSCs for the five BROCCOLI-registered datasets
as compared to the unregistered dataset and FSL-registered dataset were 0.7166±0.0407
and 0.9994±0.0005,
respectively, which suggests similar registration performance between FSL and BROCCOLI
methods. However, the average registration time was reduced from 1012.50±116.78
min to 1.11±0.09 min with BROCCOLI, which represents a 900 fold speedup in processing time
(Table 1). The practical implications are that while registering the volumes
for the five subjects took an average of 16.9 hours previously, the non-rigid
registration of the same volumes, with no loss in fidelity of registration, now
requires 1.1 minutes. Thus the time from acquiring the free-breathing images, to availability of registered, time resolved data is
approximately 12 minutes. These data can then be viewed clinically or further
processed for quantitative analysis.
Fig. 3 and Table 2 present perfusion quantification
obtained with the proposed method as well as the original method and a close
agreement in all perfusion parameters was observed between the two methods
(P>0.9).
Conclusion
In this study, a rapid image reconstruction and registration method was developed
for free-breathing 3D liver perfusion imaging using through-time spiral GRAPPA acceleration. A marked improvement in the time to availability of reconstructed
and registered volumes (~12 minutes compared to >22.5 hours) was observed
with extremely minor differences in both image quality and perfusion
quantification. This moves the technology from a research novelty to clinical
feasibility.
Acknowledgements
Siemens
Healthcare and NIH grants 1R01DK098503, R00EB011527, 1R01HL094557, and
2KL2TR000440.References
1. Chandarana
H, et al. Invest Radiol 2013;48.
2. Chen Y, et al. Invest Radiol,
2015;50:367-375.
3. Chen Y, et al. Int. Soc. Magn. Reson. Med. 2015;p386.
4. Eklund A, et al. Front Neuroinform, 2014;8:1-19.
5. Yaegashi Yuji. J Nucl
Med Radiat Ther, 2012;3:1-6.