Christopher C. Cline1,2, Xiao Chen1, Boris Mailhe1, Qiu Wang1, and Mariappan Nadar1
1Medical Imaging Technologies, Siemens Healthcare, Princeton, NJ, United States, 2Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States
Synopsis
We propose an accelerated iterative reconstruction for
magnetic resonance fingerprinting (AIR-MRF) with comprehensive integration of
temporal compression of fingerprints and accelerated dictionary matching with
approximate nearest neighbor search. Faster and more accurate MRF
reconstruction was achieved, as demonstrated by simulations with a numerical
phantom.Purpose
Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) is a
recently-proposed technique for multiparametric quantitative imaging [1], where signals from highly
undersampled time-series images are matched to a predefined dictionary.
Iterative reconstruction methods [2], [3] have been proposed to improve
reconstruction quality with promising results, at the cost of additional reconstruction
time beyond the already time-intensive non-iterative process. In this work, we propose
an accelerated iterative reconstruction (AIR-MRF) pipeline for faster and more
accurate MRF reconstruction.
Methods
We used an iterative projection method where the estimated
image series $$$\hat{X}$$$ is iteratively updated with
$$\hat{X}^{(n+1)} =
\mathcal{D}\left(\hat{X}^{(n)} + \alpha\left(G^HY-G^HG\hat{X}^{(n)}\right)\right)\\G(X)=M\mathcal{F}SX$$
where $$$Y$$$ is measured k-space data, $$$G$$$ is a SENSE
observation operator, $$$M$$$ models undersampling, $$$\mathcal{F}$$$ is the Fourier
transform, and $$$S$$$ is the coil sensitivity map, $$$\alpha$$$ is a step
size, and $$$\mathcal{D}$$$ is the projection of $$$X$$$ into the dictionary.
Approximate nearest neighbor search with
refining prior:
MRF parameter estimation is typically performed using an exhaustive
inner product (EIP) search, computing the similarity between a measured signal and
every atom in the dictionary [1]. We accelerated this step by
structuring the dictionary in a kd-tree and treating the matching problem as an
approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search, using the Fast Library for
Approximate Nearest Neighbors (FLANN) [4]. Additionally, we modified
the ANN search algorithm to use the previous iteration’s estimate as prior
information when beginning a new search, enabling further reduced search times
during iterative reconstruction.
Fingerprint compression:
Fingerprint length plays a key role in search times. To
accelerate matching, we modified the iterative reconstruction algorithm to
operate directly in a compressed space.
The dictionary and measured fingerprints were compressed along the
temporal dimension using singular value decomposition (SVD) [5]. The new
iterative update equation and observation operator are given by
$$\hat{X}^{(n+1)}_c = \mathcal{D}\left(\hat{X}^{(n)}_c +
\alpha\left(G_c^HY-G_c^HG_c\hat{X}^{(n)}_c\right)\right)\\
G_c(X_c)=MC^H\mathcal{F}SX_c$$
where $$$G_c$$$ is an observation operator with integrated
compression, $$$C$$$ is a compression operator, $$$X_c=CX$$$, $$$X\approx
C^HX_c$$$, and using the fact that the Fourier and compression operators
commute. Figure 1 illustrates the iterative reconstruction process. This
formulation facilitates accelerated dictionary matching performed in the
compressed feature space, and reduces the number of FFT/nuFFT calls by
operating on compressed image series. We refer to this reconstruction method as
Accelerated Iterative Reconstruction for MRF (AIR-MRF).
Experiment design:
Ground truth T1, T2 and proton density brain maps were
obtained from the BrainWeb digital phantom [5]. Off-resonance values ranged
linearly from -60 to 60Hz. A bSSFP sequence of length $$$L=1000$$$ with
pseudorandom flip angles and repetition time were simulated. EPI trajectories
with a uniform acceleration of $$$R=16$$$ and variable density spiral trajectories
with maximum accelerations of $$$R=48$$$ were used to simulate single-shot
acquisition. For SVD compression, we retained $$$L_c=200$$$ components. The
dictionary contained 51456 atoms, and was constructed using k-means clustering
of training data to allocate atoms more densely in T1,T2 space to
frequently-occurring tissue types, an extension of [6]. The number of iterations was
fixed at 10, with sufficient convergence often observed within 5-8 iterations. The
reconstructed parameter maps were compared to the ground truth and errors were
quantified using the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE). The original MRF
reconstruction algorithm [1] and Bloch response recovery
by iterative projection (BLIP) algorithm [2] were also implemented for comparison.
Results
Example reconstructed maps are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
FLANN search allowed for significant reductions in
dictionary matching time. Fingerprint compression further decreased the
reconstruction time (as shown in Figure 5). With integrated compression and
accelerated matching, reconstruction times for iterative MRF was comparable to
the original MRF method while achieving improved accuracies, as shown in Figure
5. Specifically, compared to the original iterative method, the proposed AIR-MRF
method allowed for a 97% reduction with minimal change in reconstruction
accuracy for the Cartesian test case, and a 79% reduction for the spiral test
case.
Conclusion
The MRF reconstruction pipeline presented here achieves high
accuracy parameter estimation and reduced reconstruction time by comprehensive
integration of an iterative reconstruction method with accelerated search and
temporal compression. While previous iterative methods have shown dramatically
improved reconstruction accuracies, they have done so at the cost of marked
increases in reconstruction times, limiting their utility. Independent methods
for search acceleration and fingerprint compression have been previously
proposed for non-iterative MRF reconstruction, but our implementation
demonstrates the unique benefits of integrating these into an iterative method.
Future work will validate AIR-MRF on real acquired data.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] D. Ma, V. Gulani, N. Seiberlich, K.
Liu, J. L. Sunshine, J. L. Duerk, and M. A. Griswold, “Magnetic resonance
fingerprinting,” Nature, vol. 495, no. 7440, pp. 187–192, Mar. 2013.
[2] M. Davies, G. Puy,
P. Vandergheynst, and Y. Wiaux, “A Compressed Sensing Framework for Magnetic
Resonance Fingerprinting,” SIAM J. Imaging Sci., vol. 7, no. 4, pp.
2623–2656, Jan. 2014.
[3] E. Y. Pierre, D. Ma,
Y. Chen, C. Badve, and M. A. Griswold, “Multiscale reconstruction for MR
fingerprinting,” Magn. Reson. Med., Jun. 2015.
[4] M. Muja and D. G.
Lowe, “Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbors with Automatic Algorithm
Configuration.,” VISAPP 1, vol. 2, 2009.
[5] “BrainWeb: Simulated
Brain Database.” [Online]. Available:
http://brainweb.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/. [Accessed: 08-Sep-2015].
[6] Z. Li, B. P. Berman,
D. R. Martin, M. I. Altbach, and A. Bilgin, “Efficient Dictionary Design for MR
Fingerprinting using Tree-Structured Vector Quantization,” in ISMRM Proceedings,
2015.