Wei-Ching Lo1, Yun Jiang2, Dominique Franson1, Mark Griswold1,2, Vikas Gulani1,2, and Nicole Seiberlich1,2
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States, 2Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States
Synopsis
Gadgetron-based
online MRF reconstruction enables rapid generation of quantitative tissue property maps directly at the scanner before completing acquisition of the following
slice. This technique can
facilitate multicenter clinical studies and facilitate easier and direct
comparisons of quantitative maps from different scanners.
Purpose
Magnetic
Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) (1,2) is a recently developed MR technique that allows simultaneous generation of quantitative maps of multiple tissue properties. MRF was originally implemented in Matlab, such that all processing was
performed off-line and involved cumbersome data transfer, making clinical
translation challenging. Here, an online reconstruction is demonstrated, using
a Gadgetron-based framework to enable rapid generation of MRF derived tissue
property maps directly at the scanner. Furthermore, online MRF reconstruction
may facilitate multicenter clinical studies and facilitate comparison of
quantitative maps from different scanners.Methods
Experiments
were performed on a 3T Skyra scanner (Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen,
Germany) using the MRF-FISP acquisition (2) with the following parameters: FOV = 400x400 mm2;
matrix size = 400x400; in-plane resolution = 1x1 mm2; flip angle =
5-75°; TR = 12-15 ms; slice thickness = 5 mm. The
acquisition time for a single 2D slice was 45 seconds. The MRF dictionary was generated
using Bloch equation simulations in MATLAB (MathWorks 2015b, Natick, MA) with T1
resolution of [10:10:100 120:20:1000 1040:40:2000
2050:150:2950 3100:100:4500] and T2 resolution of [2:2:100
105:5:150 160:10:300 350:50:800 900:100:1600 1800:200:3000], denoted by
min:step:max (ms). The dictionary included a total of 8,537 entries. The
computer used to perform online Gadgetron reconstructions has an 8GB Nvidia GeForce
GTX 1080 graphics card; a 10 core, 2.2GHz Intel Xeon E5-2630 v4 processor; and
64GB of 2400MHz DDR4 RAM. During MRF acquisition, the PCA-based coil compressed
raw data (3) were accumulated and passed on to the Gadgetron
reconstruction pipeline along with the pre-calculated dictionary. To further reduce
the computational load and
memory requirements without reducing performance, SVD basis compression (4) was applied to the MRF data to compress the
number of time points from 3000 to 52. The SVD compressed data were then
gridded using GPU-enabled NUFFT (5) and combined via adaptive coil combination (6). Direct pattern matching was applied to the
data to extract quantitative T1, T2, and proton density
maps. All Gadgetron-based quantitative maps were passed back to the scanner to
generate DICOM images for further post-processing. The accuracy of the reconstruction
was validated using the ISMRM/NIST MRI system phantom (7). The mean and standard deviation of each compartment
were calculated from 70 pixels within a circular ROI that was manually drawn on
the M0 map. The results from the proposed online Gadgetron framework
and from an offline MATLAB reconstruction were compared to the gold standard
IR-SE method for T1 values and the multiple single-echo spin echo
method for T2 values (7). The MATLAB reconstruction followed all of the steps
in the Gadgetron framework, but no coil compression was used.Results
The
total reconstruction time for the online Gadgetron framework was approximately
20 seconds per slice, while the total reconstruction time for the offline
reconstruction using MATLAB was approximately 190 seconds per slice. The time
required to perform the most time-consuming steps in the reconstruction process
are shown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows mean T1 (a) and T2
(b) values from
MRF
with Gadgetron and MRF with MATLAB reconstruction plotted against the values from the gold standard reference for each phantom compartment and each of the
three measurements. The results from the Gadgetron framework are in excellent
agreement with the MATLAB reconstruction; the greatest absolute percentage
errors between the Gadgetron framework and the MATLAB reconstruction were less
than 0.5% for T1 and 0.9% for T2. Figure 2 showed
demonstrative T1 and T2 maps for brain and prostate generated using the Gadgetron framework. The error mean,
error standard deviation (SD) and structural similarity index (SSIM) for brain
and prostate (Table 2) demonstrates that quantitative maps can be generated
using the Gadgetron framework with negligible errors.Discussion
This
Gadgetron-based online MRF reconstruction can be used to generate quantitative
maps rapidly at the scanner before completing acquisition of the following
slice. Despite the additional coil compression step in the Gadgetron
reconstruction, the T1 and T2 values as measured in the
ISMRM/NIST phantom were in excellent agreement with those generated using the
standard MATLAB reconstruction. This framework could enable clinical
translation of MRF and employment of the technology in a clinical setting.
Furthermore, the Gadgetron-based MRF reconstruction is applicable to different
commercial MR scanners for large scale multicenter and multivendor studies. As an example, the MRF Gadgetron reconstruction
has been deployed on seven workstations in three different medical institutions, further demonstrating the advantages of a scanner-agnostic
reconstruction.Conclusion
This
work enables rapid online
reconstructions for MRF tissue property mapping using a Gadgetron-based framework with
coil compression, singular value decomposition, and direct pattern matching.Acknowledgements
Siemens
Healthineers,
1R01EB016728, 1R01DK098503, 1R01CA208236. Thanks to Hua Wei, Hui Xue and Kelvin Chow for their
contributions to this work.References
[1]
Ma et al. Nature. 2013;495:187–192. [2] Jiang et al. MRM. 2015;74:1621–1631.
[3] Hansen et al. MRM. 2013;69:1768–1776. [4] McGivney et al. IEEE TMI.
2014;33:2311–2322. [5] Sorensen et al. IEEE TMI. 2008;27:538–547. [6] Inati et
al. Proc. of ISMRM. 2013, #2672. [7] Jiang et al. MRM. 2016.