Bart WJ Philips1, Katharina Paul2, Thoralf Niendorf2, and Tom WJ Scheenen1
1Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 2Berlin Ultrahigh Field Facility (BUFF), Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany
Synopsis
Diffusion weighted imaging is an important modality in assessing and detecting prostate cancer, but often suffers from distortion artifact introduced by the EPI readout. We propose a TSE-BLADE split-echo sequence that has the potential for obtaining non-distorted diffusion weighted imaging of the
prostate, while obtaining accurate ADC estimations. It is shown to be robust to
motion and phase induced artifacts that pester multi-shot diffusion weighted
imaging, in phantom measurements and initial patient results.
Introduction
Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) is an
essential part of the MRI protocol for detecting and assessing prostate cancer[1].
As DWI is generally based on EPI-like sequences, it suffers from geometrical
distortions, leading to a mismatch with anatomical T2-weighted imaging. As a
solution to the distortion problem, a diffusion sensitized Turbo Spin Echo (TSE)-based
sequence can be used instead[2,3]. These approaches tend to show b-value
dependent signal attenuations due to the motion sensitivity of the diffusion
gradients, which leads to violations of the CPMG condition[4]. Additionally,
the methods are multi-shot, introducing phase differences between k-space lines
of different shots.
We propose a multi-shot (ms)-TSE based
sequence with bipolar diffusion gradients, a BLADE (Siemens proprietary name
for PROPELLER) k-space trajectory and split-echo readout to counter the motion-induced
artifacts of DW-TSE sequences in prostate MRI[5].Materials and methods
All
measurements were performed on a 3T Prisma MRI system (Siemens Healthineers,
Erlangen, Germany). A TSE-sequence with a multi-shot BLADE acquisition, was expanded
with a diffusion preparation module using motion compensating bipolar
gradients. An extra ADC event and readout gradient were added to each echo
spacing to enable a split readout of the even (E1) and odd (E2) echoes[2,4]
(Figure 1). The final image reconstruction added the E1 and E2 images in
magnitude. Phantom measurements (container filled with iced water and 5
cylinders of demineralized water and one cylinder with a sucrose solution) were
performed to evaluate the robustness of the sequence and its accuracy in
determining the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). The TSE diffusion sequence
was also run with a Cartesian readout (no BLADE), without split-echo readout
and with monopolar diffusion gradients. As an additional test for robustness, motion-induced
phase during diffusion gradients was simulated by varying the phase of the
excitation pulse. Additional preliminary measurements were performed in one
volunteer (26y) and a patient (74y) that underwent a prostate cancer detection examination.
The sequence parameters for the patient measurement were chosen conservatively:
TE=92ms, TR=4500ms, 10 slices, 3.0mm slice thickness, 128x128 matrix, FOV=320x320mm2,
ETL=15, ESP=10.3ms, 26 blades and two b-values: 50 and 400s/mm2 (both
acquired in 58s). Results
The phantom measurements showed that a 60°
additional phase caused a severe signal attenuation in a TSE sequence without
split-echo, due to destructive interference between odd and even echo groups
caused by CPMG violations. The individual E1 and E2 echoes do not suffer from
this loss and adding them in magnitude completely recovers the original signal
intensity (Figure 2). This is also apparent from the ADC phantom measurements
that show accurate ADC values with the split-echo TSE-sequence, whereas the TSE-sequence
without split-echo yielded grossly overestimated ADC values in one ROI (Figure
3). The TSE split echo sequence with monopolar diffusion gradients yielded slightly
less accurate ADC values, but also introduced artifacts that may have been
caused by Eddy currents (Figure 3). In vivo results with Cartesian readout
showed clear motion induced ghosting artifacts with monopolar diffusion
gradients that were mitigated by using bipolar diffusion gradients (Figure 4).
In vivo results with the TSE-BLADE split-echo sequence showed b0 and b400
images that were geometrically equal to the comparable T2W-image, whereas the
EPI sequence showed some geometric distortion. Next to that, the ADC
estimations of the TSE-BLADE sequence yielded accurate results (Figure 5).Discussion
The prostate is located within the abdomen
and therefore suffers from motion, either caused by the prostate itself or by
the abdominal wall or organs within the abdomen. The phantom measurements show
the sensitivity of TSE-based sequences to motion induced phase that is
introduced by adding diffusion gradients. The use of bipolar diffusion
gradients can reduce Eddy currents and motion-induced effects. However,
any residual motion-induced phase can still be severe and cause ADC
inaccuracies. By using a split-echo approach this phase attenuation was
mitigated. Motion-induced artifacts caused by phase differences between shots were
further reduced by using a BLADE readout, as it inherently corrects for this[6].
The resulting sequence appears robust to these artifacts and yields diffusion
weighted images with high geometric fidelity and accurate ADC estimations. A
disadvantage of a split echo readout is the doubling of the readout time,
resulting in some additional acquisition of noise. To take our research to the
next level we will focus on improving SNR and on obtaining reliable image
quality for high diffusion sensitization (b=800s/mm2) .Conclusion
The TSE-BLADE split-echo sequence shows
potential for obtaining non-distorted diffusion weighted imaging of the
prostate, while obtaining accurate ADC estimations. It proved to be robust to
motion and phase induced artifacts that pester multi-shot diffusion weighted
imaging, in phantom measurements and initial patient results.
Acknowledgements
Siemens
Healthineers for providing the TSE pulse sequence source code, Dutch Cancer
Society [2014-6624]References
[1]Koh
et al. AJR, 188.6(2007):1622-1635; [2] Paul et al.. Invest. Radiol. (2015); 50(5):309-321;
[3] Zhang et al. Proc. ISMRM (2015),
0577; [4] Williams et al. MRM (1999): 1:734–742; [5] Deng et al. MRM (2008): 59:947–953;
[6] Pipe. MRM (1999): 42(5):963-9.