Salil Soman1, Zhe Liu2, Ursula Nemec, Samantha Holdsworth, Keith L Main, Jerome Yesavage, David Hacknkey, Ansgar J Furst, Maheen M Adamson, Yi Wang, Pascal Spincemaille, and Michael Moseley
1Radiology, Harvard Medical School / BIDMC, Boston, MA, United States, 2Cornell University
Synopsis
Traumatic brain injury often results in brain lesions which are subtle. Current conventional MRI techniques (GRE and SWI) are field strength and echo time dependent, causing lesions to possible be missed. QSM methods can overcome this, but with many artifacts and missed lesions due to masking artifacts. TFI QSM can overcome this issue, as we demonstrate in this study of TBI patients.
INTRODUCTION
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and
disability, with an estimated 1.5 million people in the United States sustaining
nonfatal TBI annually1. While CT imaging can well
demonstrate large cerebral hemorrhages, smaller cerebral microhemorrhages
(CMH), which may be associated with these injuries, are better visualized on
MRI. Identifying CMH burden can help characterize the severity of post
traumatic brain injury, and understand patient symptoms2,3.
T2*-weighted gradient- recalled-echo (GRE) MRI has been the method of choice to
detect CMH, with susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI), providing greater
sensitivity by manipulating magnitude images with phase information 4 . These methods, however, are
dependent on imaging field strength and echo times5. Quantitative susceptibility
mapping (QSM) can estimate the intrinsic susceptibility distribution of tissue,
is independent of data acquisition parameters, and should reflect the actual
spatial extent of lesions6-9.
It has also been shown that QSM enables discrimination between diamagnetic and
paramagnetic lesions10.
A challenge to performing QSM imaging arises from assumptions
implicit in most background field removal methods, resulting in imprecise
separation of background and tissue fields. This issue is particularly prominent
near the brain boundary, where large tissue–air susceptibility differences are
present11.
To avoid the separate fitting of background and local field, Laplacian-based
QSM methods have been proposed based on the partial differential formulation of
the forward signal equation, which implicitly eliminates the background field 12,13.
However, the implementation of the Laplacian requires some compromise between
robustness against error amplification and the integrity of the visualized
cortical brain tissue14. This tradeoff often results
in necessary erosion of the brain mask, which may prevent visualization of structures
at the brain boundaries. The total field inversion preconditioned QSM method
(TFI) has been recently demonstrated to reduce the error propagation associated
with imprecise background field removal, and suppress streaking artifacts in intracerebral
hemorrhage on QSM images. In this work we compare a traditional masking based
QSM method, Morphology enabled dipole inversion (MEDI), with TFI QSM in a
cohort of TBI patients and controls, to evaluate TFI QSM’s ability to depict
brain both normal brain parenchyma and hemorrhagic brain lesions.METHODS
Under an IRB approved protocol, outpatients with
history of TBI and control subjects were recruited. Subjects underwent Imaging
using a GE Discovery MR750 3.0 T MRI scanner (G.E., Waukesha, WI), using a 3D
multi shot multi-echo EPI acquisition [3D MSME] (TR 98ms, Echoes=3 [ TE=16,
39.5, 62.5], matrix 224x224, Resolution =1x1x1mm3), and a 3D FSPGR (TR/TE/TI
9.5/3.8/900 ms, Resolution =1x1x1mm3) using an 8 channel GE head
coil. MEDI QSM images were created using the MEDI toolbox using the default
mask [genmask.m]15,
and TFI QSM images were created using the method described by Liu et al16. Both magnitude and QSM images were created
from the 3DMSME data, and were reviewed with the T1 weighted FSPGR images by a
board certified neuroradiologist and a radiology resident, evaluating for
differences in depiction of normal anatomy and lesions.RESULTS
85 adult subjects were recruited, 63 subjects underwent 3DMSME
imaging, and 56 subjects (44 tbi, 12 non tbi) had MEDI and TFI QSM images
produced.
10 Subjects demonstrated blood or blood products (all had TBI),
in the occipital, temporal, parietal or frontal lobes, basal ganglia or cerebellum
(Figure 1-3). All of these lesions were visible on TFI QSM, while 6 of these
lesions were not visible or less conspicuous on MEDI QSM. 30 subjects (53%)
demonstrated brain parenchyma and / or lesions which were visible on TFI but
were not included in the brain tissue on MEDI. 1 subject demonstrated less
frontal brain parenchyma on TFI than MEDI (Figure 3). 5 subjects demonstrated
worse artifacts on TFI than MEDI, primarily in the region of the pons (Figure
4).DISCUSSION
While QSM imaging can image subtle brain lesions
independent of field strength and echo time, it often result in artifacts that distort
normal brain tissues and can result in non-visualization of lesions. Our work demonstrated
TFI based QSM, which doesn’t require brain masking, can preserve a greater
amount of normal brain parenchyma and depict more lesions than non TFI based
QSM methods. Furthermore, the greater preservation of anatomic landmarks, such
as skull margins, has the potential to greatly aid clinical interpretation of
QSM images.CONCLUSION
TFI based QSM imaging has the potential to
greatly improve the depiction of normal and pathological tissues and advance
the acceptance of QSM imaging for evaluating subtle brain injury, as can be
seen in TBI.Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of Drs. G. Zaharchuk, J.W. Ashford, P. Masaband, C. Langkamer, B. Bilgic, and the War Related Illness and Injury Study Center for this work. References
1. Sosin DM, Sniezek JE, Thurman DJ.
Incidence of mild and moderate brain injury in the United States, 1991. Brain
Inj 1996;10(1):47-54. '
2. Xi G,
Keep RF, Hoff JT. Mechanisms of brain injury after intracerebral haemorrhage.
Lancet Neurol 2006;5(1):53-63.
3. Greenberg
SM, Vernooij MW, Cordonnier C, Viswanathan A, Al-Shahi Salman R, Warach S, et
al. Cerebral microbleeds: a guide to detection and interpretation. Lancet
Neurol 2009;8(2):165-74.
4. Haacke
EM, Xu Y, Cheng YC, Reichenbach JR. Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI). Magn
Reson Med 2004;52(3):612-8.
5. Liu T,
Surapaneni K, Lou M, Cheng L, Spincemaille P, Wang Y. Cerebral microbleeds:
burden assessment by using quantitative susceptibility mapping. Radiology
2012;262(1):269-78.
6. Haacke
EM, Tang J, Neelavalli J, Cheng YC. Susceptibility mapping as a means to
visualize veins and quantify oxygen saturation. J Magn Reson Imaging
2010;32(3):663-76.
7. Liu T,
Xu W, Spincemaille P, Avestimehr AS, Wang Y. Accuracy of the morphology enabled
dipole inversion (MEDI) algorithm for quantitative susceptibility mapping in
MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2012;31(3):816-24.
8. Schweser
F, Sommer K, Deistung A, Reichenbach JR. Quantitative susceptibility mapping
for investigating subtle susceptibility variations in the human brain.
Neuroimage 2012;62(3):2083-100.
9. Neelavalli
J, Cheng YC, Jiang J, Haacke EM. Removing background phase variations in
susceptibility-weighted imaging using a fast, forward-field calculation. J Magn
Reson Imaging 2009;29(4):937-48.
10. Schweser
F, Deistung A, Lehr BW, Reichenbach JR. Differentiation between diamagnetic and
paramagnetic cerebral lesions based on magnetic susceptibility mapping. Med
Phys 2010;37(10):5165-78.
11. Wang Y,
Liu T. Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): Decoding MRI data for a
tissue magnetic biomarker. Magn Reson Med 2015;73(1):82-101.
12. de
Rochefort L, Liu T, Kressler B, Liu J, Spincemaille P, Lebon V, et al.
Quantitative susceptibility map reconstruction from MR phase data using
bayesian regularization: validation and application to brain imaging. Magn
Reson Med 2010;63(1):194-206.
13. de
Rochefort L, Nguyen T, Brown R, Spincemaille P, Choi G, Weinsaft J, et al. In
vivo quantification of contrast agent concentration using the induced magnetic
field for time-resolved arterial input function measurement with MRI. Med Phys
2008;35(12):5328-39.
14. Wu B,
Li W, Guidon A, Liu C. Whole brain susceptibility mapping using compressed
sensing. Magn Reson Med 2012;67(1):137-47.
15. Liu J,
Liu T, de Rochefort L, Ledoux J, Khalidov I, Chen W, et al. Morphology enabled
dipole inversion for quantitative susceptibility mapping using structural
consistency between the magnitude image and the susceptibility map. Neuroimage
2012;59(3):2560-8.
16. Liu Z,
Kee Y, Zhou D, Wang Y, Spincemaille P. Preconditioned total field inversion
(TFI) method for quantitative susceptibility mapping. Magn Reson Med 2016.