Fang Liu1, Richard Kijowski1, Wally Block2, and Alexey Samsonov1
1Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States, 2Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States
Synopsis
Numerical
simulation dramatically improves the understanding and development of new MR imaging
methods. We proposed an improved version of MR simulation package named as MRiLab with the feature of incorporating a generalized exchange tissue model to facilitate flexible
and realistic MR signal simulation for complex tissue structures. Introduction
Numerical
simulation dramatically improves the understanding and development of new MR imaging
methods. Along with the increased complexity of new imaging technique, pulse
sequences and tissue quantification methods, there are increasing demands for developing
dedicated software to accommodate essential simulation. One challenging
simulation task involves simulating the realistic signals for tissue systems
with complex multi-compartmental, multi-exchange nature. In the previous work,
we have developed simulation software named as MRiLab for performing fast 3D MRI
simulation by leveraging the power of modern GPU parallel computing techniques (1). In this work, we proposed
an improved version of MRiLab and engaged our efforts for incorporating a
generalized exchange tissue model to facilitate flexible and realistic MR
signal simulation. This abstract was aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of
using this new version of MRiLab for investigating multiple quantitative MR
experiments that remain challenging for numerical simulation.
Methods
1)
Generalized Tissue Model: The generalized model consists of
NF free proton
pools F all inter-connected by the magnetization exchange (MT) pathways, and
NB
bound proton pools B exchanging with the free proton pools (Figure 1). The free
proton pools are reserved to model compartments with measurable transverse
magnetization (e.g., water, fat, solute proton exchange compounds), while the bound
proton pools are utilized to model semi-solid tissue macromolecular content
non-visible on standard MRI (e.g, myelin, muscle fibers, collagen). Responses
of free and bound proton pools are simulated using the finite differential Bloch-McConnell
equations in the rotating frame (2) and MT saturation formalism
(3), respectively. 2) Software Implementation:
The simulation core code for calculating the mathematical equation was implemented
in C language for high simulation performance. Compute Unified Device
Architecture (CUDA) and Open Multi-Processing (OpenMP) were used for GPU and
multi-core CPU parallel simulation computation. A high interactive user
interface is developed with Matlab Graphical User Interface Developing
Environment for designing convenient simulation workflow. The current version
of MRiLab is composed of a main simulation panel, accessory function panels, discrete
Bloch-equation solving kernel, image reconstruction and analysis toolkit. 3)
Experiment Evaluation: Three different tissue models were used to evaluate
MRiLab comparing results of modeling with previously described results and with
actual phantom imaging results. Model 1 is a standard two-pool MT model widely used
for quantitative description of MT effect (3). Model 2 extends Model 1
by an exchanging free proton pool representing OH- hydroxyl groups used to
model glycosaminoglycan CEST (gagCEST) imaging (4). Finally, Model 3 extends
Model 1 by an additional free proton pool to model MT effect in the presence of
fat tissue compartment.
Results
Figure 2 show results
of simulation of MT acquisition protocol at 3T by using Model 1, followed by
estimation of macromolecule proton fraction (MPF) by standard cross relaxation
imaging (CRI) (5) and recently proposed modified CRI (mCRI) (6). Higher resolution digital model, underlying flip
angle map (corresponding to the 8 channel Biot-Savart transmission) and
corresponding MPF image is shown in Figure 2a. Figure 2b shows an example of
simulated image and FA estimated from MRiLab-simulated actual flip angle (AFI) (7) images. Note a good agreement between nominal and AFI
estimated flip angle maps. The estimated MPF maps in Figure 2c show a good
agreement between the true values and the values obtained from mCRI method.
Also notice in Figure 2d the bias estimation from CRI corresponds well with
findings in in-vivo human brain imaging (6). Figure 3 shows MRiLab-simulated gagCEST Z-Spectra
and gagCEST asymmetry plots by using Model 2. Figure 3a shows the gagCEST
Z-spectrum between -4.0ppm and 4.0ppm. Figure 3b shows the gagCEST asymmetry
curve (4,8)
from 0ppm to 4.0ppm with increase of effect at around 1.0ppm reflecting the
theoretical presence of hydroxyl proton CEST effect on water signal. Figure 4
shows measured and MRiLab-simulated MT ratio (MTR) images and corresponding
ROI-averaged MTR values in agar/fat phantoms for several fat fractions and echo
times. MTR for fat-free images does not
show variations with echo time both in simulated and experimental images, while
for non-zero fat fraction MTR demonstrates echo time dependence due to varying
fat/water signal interference. Note MTR variations in each individual echo
image despite the fact that same 2% agar solution was used in all objects. The
numerical simulation theoretically predicted the MTR oscillation pattern at
different echo time with different fat concentration which is validated by the
experimental data.
Conclusion
In this abstract, we
demonstrated MRiLab, a generalized tissue exchange model based fast MRI
numerical simulation software, is feasible and flexible for simulating accurate
and realistic MR signal in multiple types of numerical MR experiments.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Liu F, Kijowski R, Block W.
Performance of Multiple Types of Numerical MR Simulation using MRiLab. Proc
Intl Soc Mag Reson Med. Milan, Italy2014, abstract 5244.
2. McConnell HM. Reaction Rates by
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1958;28:430-431.
3. Henkelman RM, Huang X, Xiang QS,
Stanisz GJ, Swanson SD, Bronskill MJ. Quantitative interpretation of
magnetization transfer. Magn Reson Med 1993;29(6):759-766.
4. Ling W, Regatte RR, Navon G,
Jerschow A. Assessment of glycosaminoglycan concentration in vivo by chemical
exchange-dependent saturation transfer (gagCEST). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2008;105(7):2266-2270.
5. Yarnykh VL. Pulsed Z-spectroscopic
imaging of cross-relaxation parameters in tissues for human MRI: Theory and
clinical applications. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2002;47(5):929-939.
6. Mossahebi P, Yarnykh VL, Samsonov
A. Analysis and correction of biases in cross-relaxation MRI due to
biexponential longitudinal relaxation. Magn Reson Med 2013.
7. Yarnykh VL. Actual flip-angle
imaging in the pulsed steady state: a method for rapid three-dimensional
mapping of the transmitted radiofrequency field. Magn Reson Med 2007;57(1):192-200.
8. Ward KM, Aletras AH, Balaban RS. A
new class of contrast agents for MRI based on proton chemical exchange
dependent saturation transfer (CEST). J Magn Reson 2000;143(1):79-87.