Zhifeng Chen1, Liyi Kang1, Allan Jin2, Feng Liu3, Ling Xia1, and Feng Huang2
1Biomedical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, People's Republic of, 2Philips Healthcare (Suzhou) Co. Ltd, Suzhou, China, People's Republic of, 3School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
Synopsis
Dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI plays an important
role in the detection of liver metastases, characterization of tumors,
assessing tumor response and studying diffuse liver disease. It requires a high
spatial-temporal resolution. Existing iterative dynamic MRI reconstruction algorithms,
such as iGRASP and L+S, realize their functions through iterative schemes.
Though the solutions are generally acceptable, yet suffer from significantly
high computational cost. This study proposed to use dynamic artificial sparsity
and non-Cartesian parallel imaging for high spatiotemporal resolution DCE
reconstruction, which results in comparable image quality relative to the above
iterative schemes with greatly reduced computational cost.Introduction
As a quantitative functional imaging technique, dynamic contrast
enhanced (DCE) MRI plays an important role in the detection of
liver metastases, characterization of tumors, assessing tumor response and
studying diffuse liver disease. According to reference (1), an ideal study of
liver perfusion requires a high spatial-temporal resolution. Existing liver DCE
reconstruction schemes, such as conjugate-gradient SENSE (CG-SENSE) (2), iGRASP
(3) and L+S (4), realize their functions through an iterative minimization of regularized
or non-regularized least square objective function. Though these solutions are generally
acceptable, yet suffer from significantly high computational cost. The aim of
this work is to propose a computationally efficient reconstruction scheme,
which results in comparable image quality relative to the above iterative
schemes. The testing results demonstrate the effectiveness of the
prosed method.
Theory
& Methods
This study is
based on the GRAPPA-like parallel imaging (PI) scheme, which offers an enhanced
performance when the to-be reconstructed image is sparse in the image domain,
namely artificial sparsity. Artificial sparsity is capable of effectively
improving the results of PI (5, 6). In this work, GRAPPA-based PI is exploited with
the aid of dynamic artificial sparsity. The proposed k-t Artificial Sparsity
enhanced GROWL (k-t ARTS-GROWL) consists of three steps.
Step 1: Apply
sliding window and PI to the time series k-space data for a temporally averaged
intermediate result with high signal-to-noise ratio;
Step 2: Use a k-t
sparse (7) de-nosing method to remove certain noise-like streaking artefacts
and noise, and then extract the artificial sparsity by a subtraction operator;
Step 3: Restore
the final reconstruction from PI artificial sparsity result.
To
explain the proposed scheme, DCE-MRI with free breathing golden angle radial acquisition
was taken as an example. GRAPPA Operator for Wider Lines (GROWL) (8)
is utilized as the GRAPPA-like PI scheme. Then denoising along temporal dimension
is applied to reduce the noise/artifact level.
The liver
DCE-MRI data used in this work is the same as the original iGRASP reference for
the convenience of comparison (http://cai2r.net/resources/software).
As depicted, the entire dataset is divided into 28 image time frames, 21 radial
spokes per frame, the temporal resolution is ~3s/volume.
For iterative
schemes, the same parameters and implementations were used as suggested in
their original references (2-4). All algorithms are implemented in Matlab
(R2012b) running on a HP Elite Desk 800 with quad Intel Core i5-4570 CPU
3.20GHz and 4GB of Memory.
For
temporal resolution evaluation, the signal intensity to time curve of aorta (AO)
region and portal vein (PV) region were plotted to assess the reconstruction
results, as shown in Fig.1 (e), (f). AO and PV are the main contrast medium
sources of liver perfusion, which may greatly influence the perfusion effect. AO
is labelled by the red arrow in Fig.1 (d); PV is labelled by the blue arrow. CG-SENSE
result is used as golden-standard instead of NUFFT reconstruction in reference (3),
since the latter contains a variety of streaking artifacts at high reduction
factors.
Results
& Discussions
Fig.1 (a) - (d) depict
the result of reconstructed images by various methods. Fig.1 (e) and (f) display
signal-intensity time courses of two ROIs of each method. As shown in Fig.2,
the proposed k-t ARTS-GROWL achieves similar image quality to iGRASP for the
same randomly picked frame. The reconstruction time of GROWL, iGRASP, L+S, and k-t
ARTS-GROWL methods are 140s, 1309s, 425s and 305s, respectively. Compared to L+S
and iGRASP, our approach provides comparable image quality, but much faster.
From
the reconstruction results shown in Fig.1, it can be seen that our approach preserves
small vessel as the purple arrows pointed, and other image details comparable
to iterative schemes. Fig.2 also shows similar results. In addition, our
approach provides reliable time resolution as in the signal-intensity time
courses in Fig.1 (e) and (f) which is similar to iGRASP and L+S. So the spatial
and temporal resolutions offered by our approach are both comparable to iterative
schemes. With a comparison between the result of initial GROWL reconstruction and
our approach, it can be seen that the dynamic artificial sparsity does improve the
performance of PI. Most importantly, our method is computationally efficient.
For example, under the circumstance in this study, GROWL operator costs approximately
5s per frame.
Conclusion
Compared with iterative
schemes, the k-t ARTS-GROWL reconstruction can result in comparable image
quality and temporal resolution with greatly reduced computational time. The
proposed method improves the clinical applicability of the high spatiotemporal
resolution DCE-MRI.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] Pandharipande,
PV., et al. Radiology, 2005; 234: 661-673.
[2] Pruessmann,
KP., et al. MRM, 2001; 46: 638-651.
[3] Feng,
L., et al. MRM, 2013; 72: 707-717.
[4] Otazo,
R., et al. MRM, 2015; 73: 1125-1136.
[5] Huang, F., et al. MRM, 2005; 54: 1172-1184.
[6] Storey, P., et al. MRM, 2012; 67: 1391-1400.
[7] Lustig,
M., et al. ISMRM, Seattle, 2006. p2420.
[8] Lin, W., et al. MRM, 2010; 64:
757-766.