Jakob Assländer1, Steffen Glaser2, and Jürgen Hennig1
1Dept. of Radiology - Medical Physics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, 2Dept. of Chemistry, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
Synopsis
This
work discusses steady state issues in SSFP-based fingerprinting
sequences. It is shown that variations of the flip angle destroy the
steady state, causing instabilities with respect to intra-voxel
dephasing. A pseudo steady state can be achieved by adapting TR and
TE to a given flip angle pattern, restoring the typical SSFP
behavior. Furthermore, an iterative reconstruction algorithm for
fingerprinting data is proposed.Purpose
This
abstract discusses the signal behavior when varying the flip angle in
a (balanced) steady state
free
precession sequences (SSFP) sequence, as done in MR-Fingerprinting
(MRF) sequences$$$^\text{1}$$$.
The flip angle variations prevent a steady state and introduce
instabilities regarding magnetic field inhomogeneities and
intra-voxel dephasing. We show how a pseudo steady state free
precession (pSSFP) results in a more stable MRF reconstruction. Furthermore, we propose an iterative reconstruction algorithm for
fingerprinting data.
Theory
Disregarding the balanced gradients, a traditional SSFP sequence
consists of a train of equidistant RF-pulses with a constant flip
angle and a phase increment of $$$\pi$$$ for consecutive pulses. This
leads to a steady state in which the magnetization oscillates about
the z-axis (Fig.1a,b) and the polar angle $$$\vartheta=\alpha/2$$$
(in spherical coordinates) is approximately half the flip angle. As a
consequence, a spin echo$$$^\text{2}$$$
is formed at $$$TE=TR/2$$$.
However, when varying $$$\vartheta$$$, the phase of the isochromats
is changed (Fig.1c). In contrast, the Euclidean distance between the
tips of the magnetization vectors $$$\delta$$$ is not changed when
rotating the entire spin ensemble instantaneously$$$^\text{3}$$$.
Therefore, we can compare $$$d\delta$$$ for two isochromats that are
separated by an infinitesimal phase difference $$$d\omega$$$. Before
and after the $$$i^{\text{th}}$$$ RF-pulse it is given by
$$d\delta_{i}^+=d\omega\cdot
(TR_i-TE_i)\cdot\sin\vartheta_i\\d\delta_{i+1}^-=d\omega\cdot
TE_{i+1}\cdot\sin\vartheta_{i+1}\;.$$
The
preservation of $$$d\delta$$$ by a hard pulses reveals
$$TE_{i+1}=(TR_i-TE_i)\cdot\frac{\sin\vartheta_i}{\sin\vartheta_{i+1}}\;.$$
A
similar bandwidth compared to SSFP is achieved with
$$\max\left\{
TE_{i+1},\;\;TR_i-TE_i\right\}=TR_{\text{SSFP}}/2\;.$$
The
geometrical variables are depicted in Fig.1. With these relations, flip angle dependent values for $$$TR$$$ and $$$TE$$$ can be calculated, which maintain the spin echo-like character of SSFP sequences when varying the flip angle.
Methods
Dictionaries were calculated with Bloch simulations in the hard
pulse approximation for the original flip angle
pattern$$$^\text{1}$$$ with a constant $$$TR=4~\text{ms}$$$ and for
the pSSFP approach with $$$TR_{\text{SSFP}}=4~\text{ms}$$$. In the
latter sequence, the sections with $$$\alpha=0^\circ$$$ were omitted since
they contradict the idea of SSFP.
MRF
data of a single slice of a volunteer's brain were acquired with a
$$$3~\text{T}$$$ PRISMA scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany)
employing a radial readout with a golden angle increment. The total
acquisition time was $$$4~\text{s}$$$ for the MRF sequence and
$$$3.3~\text{s}$$$ for the pSSFP-MRF sequence. The spatial resolution
was $$$1\text{mm}\times1\text{mm}\times3\text{mm}$$$, the
$$$FOV=256~\text{mm}\times256~\text{mm}$$$ and the bandwidth was
$$$1500~\text{Hz/px}$$$. For reconstructing $$$T_1,T_2$$$ and
$$$PD$$$ maps we propose to iteratively minimize the cost function
$$\tilde{x}=\arg\min_{x~\in~\mathbb{C}^{N
\times
T}}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}\left|\left|\mathbf{E}_{t,:,:}\cdot{x_{:,t}}–S_{:,t}\right|\right|_2^2+\lambda_{\mathbf{P}}^2\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left|\left|x_{n,:}-\mathbf{P}_{\mathcal{A}}(x_{n,:})\right|\right|_2^2+\lambda_{\mathbf{W}}^2\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left|\left|\mathbf{W}(x_{n,:})\right|\right|^1\;.$$
The
search variable $$$x$$$ contains the images with all $$$N$$$ voxels
of all $$$T$$$ time-frames. The first summand is the data consistency
term with the forward operator $$$\mathbf{E}$$$ which incorporates a
non-uniform FFT and ESPIRiT$$$^\text{4}$$$ coil sensitivities. The
second term compares the time series of each voxel with its
projection $$$\mathbf{P}$$$ on the dictionary $$$\mathcal{A}$$$. The
third term is an $$$\ell_1$$$-penalty in the wavelet
domain$$$^\text{5}$$$. Since this algorithm approaches the Bloch
response recovery via iterated projection algorithm$$$^\text{6}$$$
(BLIP) when setting the regularization parameters to
$$$\lambda_{\mathbf{P}}\rightarrow\infty$$$ and
$$$\lambda_{\mathbf{W}}\rightarrow0$$$, we refer to it as generalized
BLIP (gBLIP). The quantitative $$$T_1,T_2$$$ and PD-maps finally result from $$$\mathbf{P}_{\mathcal{A}}(x)$$$ via a look-up table.
Results
The
spin echo formations known from SSFP (Fig.2b) are lost when varying
the flip angle (Fig.2c), but can be restored with the proposed
approach (Fig.2d). Comparing the signal evolution of a single
isochromat to the signal evolution averaged with a Cauchy
distribution corresponding to a decay time of
$$$T_2'=40~\text{ms}$$$, significant differences can be observed
(Fig.3). The difference becomes obvious in the sections with
$$$\alpha=0^\circ$$$, where the single isochromat decays with $$$T_2$$$,
while the averaged signal decays with $$$T_2^*$$$. These differences
introduce a dependency of the signal evolution and ultimately the
quantitative maps to intra-voxel dephasing. This dependency can be
undone by the pSSFP approach (Fig.4), as long as the signal
contributions originate from the central passband. The maps
in Fig.5 reveal the feasibility of acquiring quantitative maps with a
matrix size of $$$256\times256$$$ with 1000 and 850 spokes in the
case of MRF and pSSFP-MRF, respectively. In the case of MRF,
$$$T_1=802\pm79~\text{ms}$$$ and $$$T_2=47.3\pm6.3~\text{ms}$$$ of
white matter are reduced compared to literature
($$$T_1=1110\pm45~\text{ms}^\text{7}$$$ and
$$$T_2=69\pm3~\text{ms}^\text{8}$$$). Employing the concept of pSSFP,
$$$T_1=1052\pm42~\text{ms}$$$ matches literature well, while
$$$T_2=96.8\pm6.2~\text{ms}$$$ is slightly overestimated. This behavior translates to other tissues.
Conclusion and Outlook
The proposed adjustments of TR and TE restore the
spin-echo-like signal behavior typical for SSFP in fingerprinting
sequences, making this approach more robust to intra-voxel dephasing.
Along with the proposed gBLIP reconstruction, feasible $$$T_1$$$ and
$$$PD$$$-maps can be acquired with a resolution of $$$1~\text{mm}$$$
within $$$3.3~\text{s}$$$. The $$$T_2$$$-information of the acquired
data seems to be insufficient. Future work will address this issue by
optimizing the flip angle pattern for best discrimination of
different tissue employing optimal control.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dan Ma for providing the original MRF excitation pattern.References
[1]
Ma, D., Gulani, V., Seiberlich, N., Liu, K., Sunshine, J. L., Duerk,
J. L., & Griswold, M. A. (2013). Magnetic resonance
fingerprinting. Nature, 495(7440), 187–192. doi:10.1038/nature11971
[2]
Scheffler, K., & Hennig, J. (2003). Is TrueFISP a gradient-echo
or a spin-echo sequence? Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 49(2),
395–397. doi:10.1002/mrm.10351
[3]
Assländer, J., Glaser, S. J., & Hennig, J. (2015). Spin echoes
in the regime of weak dephasing. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine,
(epub ahead of print). doi:10.1002/mrm.25579
[4]
Uecker, M., Lai, P., Murphy, M. J., Virtue, P., Elad, M., Pauly, J.
M., … Lustig, M. (2014). ESPIRiT - An eigenvalue approach to
autocalibrating parallel MRI: Where SENSE meets GRAPPA. Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 71(3), 990–1001. doi:10.1002/mrm.24751
[5]
Lustig, M., Donoho, D., & Pauly, J. M. (2007). Sparse MRI: The
application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 58(6), 1182–1195. doi:10.1002/mrm.21391
[6]
Davies, M., Puy, G., Vandergheynst, P., & Wiaux, Y. (2014). A
Compressed Sensing Framework for Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting.
SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 7(4), 27. doi:10.1137/130947246
[7]
Ethofer T, Mader I, Seeger U, Helms G, Erb M, Grodd W, Ludolph A,
Klose U. Comparison of longitudinal metabolite relaxation times in
different regions of the human brain at 1.5 and 3 T. Magn Res Med
2003;50:1296–1301.
[8]
Stanisz, G. J., Odrobina, E. E., Pun, J., Escaravage, M., Graham, S.
J., Bronskill, M. J., & Henkelman, R. M. (2005). T1, T2
relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson
Med, 54(3), 507–512. doi:10.1002/mrm.20605