Ek T Tan1, Seung-Kyun Lee1, Paul Weavers2, Matthew Middione3, Matt A Bernstein2, John Huston2, and Thomas KF Foo1
1GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, United States, 2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States, 3GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, CA, United States
Synopsis
It is challenging to
increase spatial resolution (≤1.5 mm) in whole-brain, single-shot
echo-planar-imaging (ss-EPI) on conventional whole-body systems due to EPI
distortion and limited SNR. A compact head 3T system with an asymmetric head
gradient coil capable of high gradient amplitude and 3.5 times the slew rate of
whole-body systems can enable ss-EPI acquisition with high spatial resolution
and reduced spatial distortion, simultaneously. This work compares spin-echo
and gradient-recalled-echo ss-EPI between the compact and whole-body systems,
showing substantially reduced distortion and signal dropout, and shorter
echo-times. Results with the high performance gradient were also demonstrated
in multi-band-accelerated, high b-value diffusion-imaging.Purpose
Single-shot
echo-planar imaging (ss-EPI) is routinely utilized for diffusion imaging and
fMRI due to its fast readout. Improvements to spatial resolution are however limited
by SNR and EPI distortion. In-plane parallel imaging is frequently utilized to
reduce EPI distortion at the cost of reduced SNR. As compared to conventional
whole-body systems, a compact head 3T system
1 with a dedicated, high-performance head-gradient
system
2 has superior gradient slew rate (SR) performance
by 3.5 times (Gmax=80 mT/m, SR=700 T/m/s), allowing echo spacing (ESP)
to be reduced by up to a factor of two without encountering peripheral nerve
stimulation limits
3-4. The purpose of this work is to compare
spin-echo (SE) and gradient-recalled-echo (GRE) EPI performance between the
compact 3T and whole-body scanners, and to evaluate the high performance gradient
of the compact scanner in advanced diffusion imaging.
Methods
The compact 3T system is built around a
conduction-cooled, low-croygen magnet that has a warm-bore inner diameter of 62
cm, a magnet weight less than 2,000 kg, a 5 Gauss fringe field area of 24m2,
and an imaging FOV (DSV) of 26 cm.
Healthy human subjects (under an IRB-approved protocol) were imaged
using the compact 3T system, and on a conventional whole-body 3T MRI system (GE
MR750). 2D SE-EPI and GRE-EPI axial acquisitions were performed at 1.5-3.4 mm-isotropic
sampling (FOV=20.8 cm, TR/TE=1500/40 ms) without in-plane parallel imaging. The
ss-EPI readout amplitude was set to 51mT/m on the compact 3T, which allowed
full-sampling of the phase-encoding k-space while keeping under TE=40 ms in
GRE-EPI. GRE-EPI with the whole-body 3T was performed with partial-ky=0.75, as
were all SE-EPI scans on both systems.
Whole-brain diffusion-imaging was also tested, using
the high performance head-gradient inserted in a whole-body 3T magnet (GE
MR750w), to evaluate the feasibility of acquisition at 1.5 mm-isotropic spatial
resolution. Simultaneous multi-slice acquisition5 with no in-plane parallel acceleration (R=3×1) and with
slice-select gradient reversal6 was used to shorten acquisition time without residual
fat artifacts from the fat saturation pulses. A 32-channel brain coil (Nova
Medical) was used in all experiments. The acquisitions tested were:
compressed-sensing diffusion spectrum imaging (CS-DSI)7 (bmax=8000 s/mm2, TR/TE=3800/75.1 ms, CS-acceleration R=4, 6 T2 + 127
acquired gradient directions, scan time=8.5 minutes) and multi-shell HARDI8 (bmax=3000 s/mm2, TR/TE=3800/71.4 ms, two b-values with total of 6 T2
+ 98 acquired gradient directions, 6.6 minutes). No EPI-distortion correction
was applied in the image reconstruction. The readout gradient was reduced to 40
mT/m to increase image SNR, at the expense of slightly increased ESP=456 µs (vs
388 µs at 51mT/m).
Results
For all spatial resolutions tested
(1.5-3.4 mm), the ESP with the compact 3T EPI scans was approximately half that
with the whole-body scanner (Table 1). The ESP for 1.5 mm EPI in the compact
scanner was shorter than that of 3.4 mm EPI with the whole-body scanner. At 1.5
mm, there was visibly reduced susceptibility-induced distortion and signal
dropout in both SE-EPI and GRE-EPI with the compact scanner (Figure 1),
especially in the vicinity of air-tissue-bone interfaces. However, there was increased
residual fat ghosting. The compact scanner produced images with low distortion
at all spatial resolutions (Figure 2). Moreover, the extent of signal dropout in
the GRE-EPI due to dephasing was reduced with thinner slices.
Diffusion imaging at 1.5 mm-isotropic with
multi-shell and DSI provided adequate SNR, sufficient for visualizing colorized
FA maps and diffusion kurtosis9 (Figure 3), as well as the major fiber bundles as
processed using orientation distribution functions that resolve fiber-crossings
(Figure 4).
Discussion and Conclusion
Preliminary
imaging experience using 2D ssEPI on the compact 3T system equipped with the
high performance head-only gradient suggests the feasibility of routine
acquisition of 1.5 mm in-plane resolution with both spin-echo and
gradient-recalled-echo. In particular for GRE, the short echo spacing allows
for full-echo sampling at TE≤40 ms with low signal dropout, which makes
high-resolution fMRI feasible at 1.5 mm. The combined advantages of reduced ESP
and TE in diffusion imaging may enable high-resolution and high b-value
acquisitions. Susceptibility artifacts are reduced primarily by the decreased ESP,
and secondarily by the smaller voxel volumes, which are better supported by the
increased gradient performance of the compact system. The EPI ghosting may be
reduced with further optimizations of the gradient driver. The low image
distortion provided by the compact 3T system provides future avenues for
researching rapid ssEPI-based sequences to replace conventional workhorse pulse
sequences such as T1-FLAIR and T2-FLAIR.
Acknowledgements
This work was
supported in part by NIH R01EB010065. The views herein do not necessarily
represent those of NIH. The authors thank John Andrew Derbyshire for useful
discussion.References
1. Foo TKF, et
al. ISMRM 2016.
2. Huston J,
et al. ISMRM 2015. 971.
3. Lee SK, et
al. Magn Reson Med (Accepted).
4. Lee SK, et
al. ISMRM 2014. 310.
5. Setsompop
K, et al. Magn Reson Med 2011. 67(5):1210-24.
6. Middione M,
et al. ISMRM 2015. 958.
7. Menzel MI,
et al. Magn Reson Med 2011. 66(5):1226-33.
8. Aganj I, et
al. Magn Reson Med 2010. 64(2):554-66.
9. Jensen JH, et al.
Magn Reson Med 2005. 53(6):1432-40.