Synopsis
A
new method for fast high-resolution whole-brain three-dimensional
(3D) mapping of the macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) based on three source
images has been recently proposed. In this study, reproducibility of repeated MPF
measurements in white and gray matter with simultaneous estimation of tissue
volumes using automated segmentation of 3D MPF maps obtained with isotropic
resolution of 1.25 mm was assessed. MPF
measurements in brain tissues are highly reproducible with coefficients of
variation <1.5%. 3D MPF mapping provides “all-in-one” solution for simultaneous
characterization of myelination and volumetric changes in brain tissues.Introduction
Macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) is a key
biophysical parameter determining the magnetization transfer (MT) effect within
the two-pool model
1 and defined as a relative amount of macromolecular
protons involved into cross-relaxation with free water protons. A fast method
allowing whole-brain MPF mapping based on a single MT-weighted image was
recently developed
2. This technique demonstrated a promise as a
robust clinically-targeted quantitative myelin imaging approach in multiple
sclerosis
3 and mild traumatic brain injury
4 studies. A
new modification of the single-point method
1 based on a synthetic
reference image for data normalization has been recently reported as the fastest
possible MPF mapping technique
5. This technique requires only three
source images (MT-, T1-, and proton density (PD)-weighted) to reconstruct an
MPF map and enables whole-brain high-resolution MPF mapping with clinically feasible
acquisition time. Due to high contrast between white matter (WM) and gray
matter (GM), high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) MPF maps potentially can provide not only the
means for quantitative assessment of myelination but also source images for neuroanatomical
volume measurements. The objective of this study was to characterize scan-rescan
reproducibility of both MPF and volume measurements for WM and GM based on automated
segmentation of high-resolution whole-brain MPF maps.
Methods
Participants: Eight healthy
volunteers (mean age ± standard deviation (SD): 44.6 ± 12.2 years, age range:
29-66 years, 4 females/4 males) underwent two repeated scans with the interval
between 6 and 12 months.
MRI Protocol: MRI data acquisition was performed on a
3.0 Tesla Philips Achieva scanner with an 8-channel phased-array head coil. 3D PD-
and T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo images were acquired with TR=21 ms and flip
angle (FA)= 4° and 25°, respectively. 3D MT-weighted images were acquired with
TR=28 ms and FA=10°. Off-resonance saturation was achieved by applying the
single-lobe sinc pulse with Gaussian apodization, offset frequency 4 kHz,
effective saturation FA=560°, and duration 12 ms. All images were acquired with
non-selective excitation, FOV = 240x240x180 mm3, and isotropic voxel
size of 1.25x1.25x1.25 mm3. 3D dual-echo B0 maps (TR/TE1/TE2=20/2.3/3.3
ms, FA=10°)6 and AFI B1 maps
(TR1/TR2=40/160 ms, TE=2.3 ms, FA = 60°)7 were obtained in the
same geometry with voxel sizes of 2.5x2.5x2.5 mm3 and 2.5x2.75x5.0
mm3, respectively. Parallel imaging (SENSE) was used for all scans in
two phase encoding directions with acceleration factors 1.5 (anterior-posterior)
and 1.2 (left-right). Acquisition time was 19 min for the entire protocol.
Image
reconstruction and analysis: MPF maps were reconstructed using the recently described algorithm5
comprising the following steps: reconstruction of R1 and PD maps from two
variable FA images with B1 correction, computation of a synthetic reference
image from R1, PD, and B1 maps, and reconstruction
of an MPF map from an MT-weighted image normalized to the synthetic reference
image according
to the single-point method2. Before reconstruction, non-brain
tissues were removed by applying a brain mask created from the PD-weighted
image using the brain extraction tool (BET)8 in FSL software. Cerebrospinal
fluid (CSF) was segmented out from R1 maps based on a threshold
value of R1 = 0.33 s-1.
MPF maps were segmented into WM and GM. using an automated segmentation tool
(FAST)9 in FSL software with the Markov random field weighting
parameter 0.25. To account for potentially incomplete CSF segmentation and
exclude voxels containing partial volume of CSF (PVCSF), the third mixed tissue
class was also prescribed. Tissue classes were defined by specifying initial
tissue-type priors.
Statistical
analysis: Scan-rescan agreement between global WM and GM MPF and volume
measurements was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. To estimate variability between measurements, within-subject coefficients of variation (CoV) were calculated.
Results
An example high-resolution whole-brain 3D MPF map
(Figure 1) demonstrates sharp WM-GM contrast and clear definition of anatomical
details. Figure 2 illustrates a scheme of brain segmentation with color-coded
tissue masks. Bland-Altman plots characterizing repeatability of brain tissue MPF
and volume measurements are shown in Figures 3 and 4. No significant bias was
detected in any measurement. MPF measurements were characterized by remarkably
low variability with CoV of 1.5% and 1.1% for WM and GM, respectively. CoV for
volume measurements were 2.1% for WM and 3.2% for GM.
Discussion and Conclusions
This study demonstrates that whole-brain MPF measurements
in WM and GM are highly reproducible, and their variability is substantially
lower than that for a variety of other quantitative MRI parameters
10.
Fast high-resolution 3D MPF mapping provides a potential for simultaneous
characterization of myelination and volumetric changes in brain tissues, which
enables an “all-in-one” solution for a variety of neuroscience
studies where quantitative assessment of both demyelination and atrophy is of
interest.
Acknowledgements
National Multiple Sclerosis Society grant RG4864A1
NIH grant R21EB016135
Russian
Science Foundation (project #14-45-00040)
References
1. Morrison C, Henkelman RM. Magn Reson Med 1995; 33,
475–482.
2. Yarnykh VL. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:166-178
3. Yarnykh VL, et al. Radiology. 2015;274:210-220.
4. Yarnykh VL.Magn Reson Med. 2015, published on-line.
5. Petrie EC, et al. J Neurotrauma 2014;31:425–436.
6. Skinner TE, Glover GH. Magn Reson Med
1997;37:628–630.
7. Yarnykh VL. Magn Reson Med
2007;57:192–200.
8. Smith SM. Hum Brain Mapp 2002;17:143–155.
9. Zhang Y, et al. IEEE Trans Med Imaging
2001;20:45–57.
10. Weiskopf N, et al. Front Neurosci 2013;7:95.