Jean-François Cabana1, Ye Gu2, Mathieu Boudreau3, Ives R. Levesque3, Yaaseen Atchia4, John G. Sled4, Sridar Narayanan3, Douglas L. Arnold3, Bruce G. Pike5, Julien Cohen-Adad6, Tanguy Duval6, Manh-Tung Vuong6, and Nikola Stikov6
1Medical Physics, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2NeuroRX, Montreal, QC, Canada, 3McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 4University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 5University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 6Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, QC, Canada
Synopsis
We have
developed a free, open source software (qMTLab)
that unifies the most widely used quantitative magnetization transfer imaging
(qMTI) methods in a simple and easy to use graphical interface. qMTLab allows to easily simulate qMTI
data, compare the performance of the methods under various experimental
conditions, define new acquisition protocols, fit acquired data, and visualize
the fitted parameter maps. In this presentation, we will offer a brief
introduction on the theory behind qMTI, present the current acquisition and
analytical methods, and present the functionality of the qMTLab software and its utility in basic and clinical research. Purpose
Quantitative
magnetization transfer imaging (qMTI) increases specificity to macromolecular
content in tissue by modeling the exchange process between the liquid and the
macromolecular pool. However, its use has been limited, in part due to the need
to write complicated in-house software for modeling and data analysis. We have
developed a free open source software, qMTLab
(https://github.com/neuropoly/qMTLab/), that
unifies the most widely used qMTI methods and allows one to easily simulate
qMTI data, compare the performance of the methods under various experimental
conditions, define new acquisition protocols, fit acquired data, and visualize
the fitted parameters maps. By providing free software with a simple and easy
to use graphical interface, we hope to make qMTI accessible to a greater number
of investigators and facilitate the development and optimization of protocols.
Outline of Content
We will
begin by presenting an introduction on the theory behind qMTI. We will then
explain the current acquisition methods and the analytical solutions that have
been developed to extract useful physical parameters about this model. Finally,
we will present the functionality of the qMTLab
software and demonstrate its utility.
Methods
Theory
In vivo qMTI methods are based on a model that describes hydrogen nuclei in tissues as composed of two distinct
pools: a free pool of highly mobile protons associated with water, and a
restricted pool of less mobile protons residing in macromolecules (Figure 1)1,2. This model is characterised by
seven parameters: pool size ratio (F); exchange rate (either kr
or kf, the two being
related by F = kf/kr); longitudinal relaxation rates (R1f,
R1r); transverse relaxation times (T2f, T2r)
and the equilibrium magnetization (M0f,
with M0r = F×M0f). Under certain assumptions,
analytical solutions can be derived and a signal equation can be fitted to the
data, from which the qMTI parameters are derived.
Three
acquisition protocols can be used for qMTI. MT-SPGR is a steady-state
acquisition which combines off-resonance pulsed saturation (variable duration and power) of the restricted
pool with an SPGR readout (Figure 2a)3,4. SIR-FSE uses a selective
inversion recovery (SIR) sequence with variable inversion times followed by a fast spin echo
(FSE) readout (Figure 2b)5,6. In MT-bSSFP, a steady-state acquisition
is performed by applying a series of equally spaced, on-resonance RF pulses of variable duration and flip angles (Figure 2c)7.
qMTLab software presentation
The
software consists of two parts: 1) a qMTI data simulator, and 2) a qMTI data
fitting and visualization interface. The simulation part allows users to
generate synthetic qMTI data using the above described protocols, evaluate how
well they perform under known ground-truth parameters, determine the most
appropriate acquisition parameters, and evaluate how fitting constraints impact
the results. The data fitting part provides an interface to import qMTI data,
fit models to the data and visualize the resulting parameters maps. An example
of the graphical user interface is presented in Figure 5.
Synthetic data
Three
modes of simulation are offered (Figure 6 a-c): 1) Single Voxel Curve, to simulate MT data from a single voxel; 2) Sensitivity Analysis, allows systematic
variation of one MT parameter, over a defined range and number of points, while
keeping the others fixed; and 3) Multi
Voxel Distribution, where any parameter combination is allowed to be varied
simultaneously for a number of voxels.
Data fitting
The
data fitting part of qMTLab (Figure 6d) provides a simple interface to load
acquired qMTI data, fit a model and visualize the resulting parameters maps. The
user can provide a qMTI data file, select or define the protocol used for
acquisition and set the fitting options. The user can also load a mask to
constrain the areas to be analyzed, an observed R1 map for R1f
evaluation, a B1 map for MT pulse power or excitation flip angle
correction and a B0 map for correction of offset frequencies. Fitting
results are displayed as parametric maps with user-controllable color scales.
Conclusion
The
ability to map quantitative values such as the rate of magnetization exchange
between free and restricted protons or the ratio of the proton pools makes qMTI
a valuable tool in characterizing tissue microstructure. By providing free
software that gives end users a simple and easy-to-use graphical interface, we
hope to make qMTI accessible to a greater number of investigators and
facilitate the development and optimization of protocols for research in clinical populations. The open-source nature of qMTLab makes it particularly useful, in
that it is subject to continuous improvement and that users can customize it
and add functionality to fit individual needs.
The
qMTLab software can be downloaded for free at:
https://github.com/neuropoly/qMTLab/
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Henkelman RM,
Huang X, Xiang QS, Stanisz GJ, Swanson SD, Bronskill MJ. 1993 Quantitative
interpretation of magnetization transfer. Magn Reson Med;29(6):759-66.
2. Henkelman RM,
Stanisz GJ, Graham SJ. 2001 Magnetization transfer in MRI: a review. NMR
Biomed;14(2):57-64.
3. Pike GB. 1996
Pulsed magnetization transfer contrast in gradient echo imaging: A two-pool
analytic description of signal response. Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine;36(1):95-103.
4. Sled JG, Pike
GB. 2000 Quantitative interpretation of magnetization transfer in spoiled
gradient echo MRI sequences. J Magn Reson;145(1):24-36.
5. Gochberg DF,
Gore JC. 2003 Quantitative imaging of magnetization transfer using an inversion
recovery sequence. Magn Reson Med;49(3):501-5.
6. Gochberg DF,
Gore JC. 2007 Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging via selective
inversion recovery with short repetition times. Magn Reson Med;57(2):437-41.
7. Bieri O,
Scheffler K. 2007 Optimized balanced steady-state free precession magnetization
transfer imaging. Magn Reson Med;58(3):511-8.