Stefano Mandija1, Alessandro Sbrizzi1, Astrid L.H.M.W. van Lier1, Peter R. Luijten1, and Cornelis A.T. van den Berg1
1Center For Image Sciences, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
Synopsis
EPT conductivity reconstruction is affected by difficulties to reliably
calculate spatial derivatives on voxelized MRI data. Here, we explore the
impact of several numerical approximations. In particular: the different size
of finite-difference kernels and the k-space truncation (always present in MR
images). We also explore a Fourier-domain alternative, which does not require
finite-difference approximation kernels.Introduction
Electric Properties Tomography
(EPT) of tissue is performed through electromagnetic analysis of complex $$$B_1^+$$$
maps1,2,3. A key challenge is
the calculation of first and second order spatial derivatives of phase maps near
tissue boundaries. The inaccurate
reconstruction is due to the invalidity of the electromagnetic reconstruction models4,5,6
and the difficulties to calculate spatial derivatives on voxelized data.
In
this study, we investigate the latter aspect by exploring the impact in EPT
reconstruction of: different size of finite-difference kernels (K); k-space truncation
on the approximated second order spatial derivatives ($$$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}$$$) of the B1+ phase. We demonstrate that there is
a fundamental limitation to accurately calculate $$$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}$$$ and we explore alternative strategies
with theoretically milder artifact levels.
Theory
Phase-only EPT conductivity reconstruction7, is closely
related to the analysis of second order phase derivatives. This reconstruction (Fig.
1/A eq.1) is affected by two main numerical approximations coming from: truncated
k-space data (image convolution with a kernel W) (Fig. 1/A eq.2); the use of
finite-difference kernels K (Fig. 1/A eq.3). The concurrent action of W and K (Fig.
1/A eq.4) explains the notorious errors in σEPT(r) reconstruction.
Exact Phase Derivatives (EPD)8 can be instead calculated
in the Fourier domain without making use of the convolution with K-kernels
(Fig.1/B, eqs.5-6). However, as shown in Fig. 1/B eqs.7-8, noise in
the high frequencies is amplified by (2πik)n. This could be mitigated
by using appropriate truncation strategies. In Fig. 1/C, the effect of a Gaussian window (wG)
is compared to a standard boxcar (wB).
Methods
We first explored by means
of simulations the impact of different finite-difference K-kernel sizes and of the k-space truncation (W) on $$$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}$$$ for σEPT(r) reconstruction. Two different geometrical structures were investigated.
Secondly, we investigated
the possibility to reconstruct conductivity maps by computing EPD directly in
frequency domain (σEPD(r)),
therefore independently from K-kernels. The impact of the truncating windows wG
and wB was also explored. σEPT(r)
maps were compared to σEPD (r) maps through simulations and measurements.
Measurements were
performed on a phantom (Fig. 2)9 in a 3T MR scanner10. Simulations
were performed in Matlab11 using the same dimensions/properties of
the phantom and a
realistic $$$B_1^+$$$ phase map. Phase-only
conductivity reconstruction was considered.
Results and Discussion
Figure 3/a-c shows that larger
K-kernels sizes lead to more extended boundary errors, resulting into edges
smoothing. The unavoidable truncation of k-space results in an additional
artifact in image domain (Gibbs ringing) which corrupts σEPT(r) reconstruction (Fig. 3/b-d). In particular, as shown
in the plots of Fig. 3 and by the coefficient of variation (CV(σEPT)=SD(σEPT)/mean(σEPT), for region 4 as an example), the ringing effect perturbation
depends on the mutual position of different compartments. Comparison between
truncated (Fig. 3/b-d) and non-truncated (Fig. 3/a-c) k-space reconstructions shows that the Gibbs
ringing artifact is not negligible. This artifact can be mitigated if larger
differentiation kernels are adopted (because of their smoothing effect) (Fig. 3/b-d).
However, this is not a desirable solution since larger K-kernels sizes introduce
larger boundary error extent.
The EPD approach, which is
independent on differentiation kernels, was also explored (Fig. 1-4). Simulated
and measured σEPD(r)
maps (Fig. 4/b-c-f-g) seem to detect tissue boundaries better than σEPT(r) maps (Fig. 4/a-e). However, σEPD(r) maps
result corrupted
if a boxcar window is used to truncate the k-space (Fig. 4/b-f). Small perturbations in
the K-space periphery are amplified by the multiplicative factors (2πik)n (Fig.
1, Eq. 7-8) and thus lead to high frequency fluctuations in image space.
However, when a
truncating Gaussian
window is applied, these fluctuations are less pronounced (Fig. 4/c-g). As shown in (Fig. 1/c),
the impact of high frequency perturbations is strongly attenuated. Gibbs
ringing is reduced, although this effect will always be present at boundaries
due to K-space truncation.
Conclusions
In addition to model
invalidities, EPT reconstructions are also affected by artifacts related to the
truncation of k-space, and the use of differentiation kernels. Our results show
that the effect of k-space truncation is not negligible and it depends on structure
geometry. In addition, the boundary error extent is larger for larger K-kernels
sizes.
A new frequency-domain reconstruction technique, independent on
differentiation kernel was explored. This technique is still affected by
perturbations but, when combined with appropriate apodization windows, it might
enhance the detection of structure boundaries. Although our analysis was
limited to second order phase derivatives, our findings could also be extended
to first and second derivatives of $$$B_1^+$$$ amplitude or to any other derivative-based
reconstruction technique like Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the DeNeCor project being part of the
ENIAC Joint Undertaking.References
[1] Haacke EM, et al. Phys Med Biol 1991;36:723–734.
[2] Wen H. In Proceedings SPIE 5030, Medical
Imaging: Physics of Medical Imaging. San Diego, CA, USA, 2003. pp. 471–477.
[3] Katscher U, et al. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2009;28:1365–1374.
[4] Liu J, et al. Magn Reson Med. 2015
Sep;74(3):634-46.
[5] Sodickson D, et al. In Proceedings
of the 21th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2013. p. 4175.
[6]
Seo JK, et al. IEEE Trans
Med Imaging 2012;31:430–437.
[7]
van Lier ALHMW, et al. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:552-561.
[8] de Leeuw H, et al. NeuroImage
2012;60:818–829.
[9] Stogryn A. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech 1971;19:733-736.
[10]
Ingenia, Philips, Best, The Netherlands.
[11]
Matlab 2013a, The MathWoks, Inc..