Synopsis
Whole-lung coverage 3He ventilation images, maps
of ADC, alveolar dimension (LmD),
and T2* were acquired in a single breath-hold using a
multiple-interleaved 3D sequence with compressing sensing (CS). A fully-sampled
three-interleaved ADC and T2* dataset was acquired for CS
simulations, to determine the optimal k-space undersampling patterns. A
prospective, 3-fold undersampled 3D five-interleaved dataset was acquired with
CS and parametric maps were compared to those calculated from fully-sampled
datasets. CS-derived ADC and LmD
values showed good agreement with fully-sampled equivalents. CS-derived T2*
values were lower than fully-sampled ones due to the smoothing process of the CS
reconstruction.Purpose
Hyperpolarised
3He gas MRI has been shown to
provide quantitative measures of regional lung ventilation [1]
and lung microstructure [2,3].
In particular, the
3He apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) [2],
estimates of alveolar dimension (
LmD)
[3],
and T
2* [4]
are sensitive to changes in lung microstructure and function. Previously,
single breath-hold acquisition of 2D
3He ventilation, ADC, T
2*,
and B
1 maps were demonstrated at 3T using compressed sensing (CS) [5].
However, this 2D multi-slice acquisition did not provide whole-lung coverage or
multiple
b-value data for
LmD calculation. In this
work, a 3D multiple-interleaved sequence was implemented with CS [6]
to acquire whole-lung coverage co-registered
3He ventilation images,
parametric maps of ADC,
LmD,
and T
2* within a single breath-hold.
Methods
The 3D multiple-interleaved sequence is summarised in
Figure 1. The first and second interleaves were used to compute ADC maps, while
the first four interleaves were used to calculate LmD by fitting data with the stretched exponential model
[3]. Finally, the first and fifth interleaves were used to compute T2*
maps.
In
order to simulate the optimal k-space sampling pattern for CS, a fully-sampled
three-interleaved dataset (interleaves 1, 2 and 5 in Figure 1) was acquired in
a healthy volunteer (M, 25y) on a GE HDx 1.5T MR scanner using 400mL of 3He
(~25% polarisation). Imaging parameters: 3D SPGR, b=0, 1.6 s/cm2, 80x66x22 matrix, FOV=40x32.5x24.4 cm3,
TE1/TR1=4.1/5.7 ms, TE2/TR2=14.8/16.4
ms, diffusion time Δ=1.6ms, flip angle=1.4°, bandwidth=±31.25 kHz. Optimal k-space undersampling
patterns were determined for acceleration factors (AFs) of 2 to 5 by minimising
the mean absolute error between undersampled and fully-sampled ventilation
images (MAE), ADC maps (ADC MAE), and T2* maps (T2*
MAE). By retrospectively undersampling the fully-sampled dataset, images were
reconstructed from the optimal undersampling patterns [6], and mean ADC and T2* values were
compared between each AF.
The full five-interleaved sequence was implemented with
CS in a prospective acquisition on the same healthy volunteer. Three-fold
undersampling was introduced to reduce the breath-hold time to 18s. Imaging
parameters were as above, except four b-values
(0, 1.6, 4.2, 7.2 s/cm2)
and flip angle=1.9° were used. Prospective CS-sampled ADC and T2*
maps were compared to corresponding fully-sampled maps. LmD maps were compared to those acquired previously
using 2D fully-sampled multiple b-value
diffusion MRI in the same volunteer.
Results and Discussion
Global
mean ADC and T2* values from the fully-sampled three-interleaved dataset
were consistent with reported values for healthy lungs at b=1.6 s/cm2 and 1.5T [2,7]. A summary of the simulated changes in MAE,
global ADC, and T2* values with AF is shown in Table 1. The MAE
value between fully-sampled and reconstructed ventilation images (b=0, interleave 1 in Figure 1) increased
for each AF, but images showed good preservation of main
details and no additional artefacts at high AFs (Figure 2 top row). Reconstructed
ADC maps exhibited a similar trend; the global mean ADC value was approximately
constant with increasing ADC MAE and sample slice ADC maps appeared visually
similar (Figure 2 middle row). The T2* MAE also increased with AF, and
corresponding global T2* values decreased (maps shown in Figure 2
bottom row). This decrease in T2* with increased undersampling was observed
previously in 2D CS experiments at 3T [5] and was attributed to the smoothing properties
of the CS reconstruction.
The prospective CS five-interleaved dataset allowed whole-lung
coverage, 3D co-registered 3He ventilation images, parametric maps of
ADC, LmD, and T2*
to be acquired in a single breath-hold (Figure 3). Prospective CS-derived global
mean ADC (0.175±0.076 cm2/s) and LmD
(209.0±30.0 μm) values
agreed with corresponding 3D and 2D fully-sampled equivalent values (0.173±0.082
cm2/s and 207.2±24.6 μm,
respectively). The small positive bias in CS-derived values is consistent with previous
observations in CS-derived microstructure measurements, and is attributable to
the CS reconstruction process [8]. The global mean T2* value for the
prospective dataset was 16.40±12.86 ms, smaller than the fully-sampled mean value
(23.70±18.38 ms). This was
consistent with the CS simulations results; the prospective CS T2*
value was in agreement with the simulated T2* value for AF=3 (17.08±13.73
ms).
Conclusions
We have demonstrated that it is feasible to acquire whole-lung
coverage, co-registered images of lung ventilation, ADC,
LmD, and T
2* in a single breath-hold with a
3D multiple-interleaved sequence and CS. Good agreement of ADC and
LmD values was obtained
between prospective CS and fully-sampled datasets in a healthy volunteer.
Prospective T
2* values were smaller than fully-sampled equivalents,
a result of smoothing from the CS reconstruction. Further work will investigate
the difference between CS-derived and fully-sampled T
2* values and
evaluate the sequence in patients and with
129Xe.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the University of Sheffield, National Institute for Health Research, and Medical Research Council.References
[1] Horn, F. C., et al. (2014). J Appl Physiol 116(2):
129-139.
[2] Saam, B. T., et al. (2000). Magn Reson Med 44(2):
174-179.
[3] Parra-Robles, J., et al. (2014). Proc. Intl. Soc.
Mag. Reson. Med: 3529.
[4] Chen, X. J., et al. (1999). Magn Reson Med 42(4):
729-737.
[5] Ajraoui, S., et al. (2012). NMR Biomed 25(1): 44-51.
[6] Lustig, M., et al. (2007). Magn Reson Med 58(6):
1182-1195.
[7] Deppe, M. H., et al. (2009). J Magn Reson Imaging
30(2): 418-423.
[8] Chan, H-F., et al. (2015). ESMRMB 2015 Congress: 135.