Franck Mauconduit1, Chantal Ginisty2, Séverine Desmidt2, Séverine Roger2, Lionel Allirol2, Lucie Hertz-Pannier2, and Alexandre Vignaud3
1Siemens Healthcare, Sant-Denis, France, 2Joliot/Neurospin/UNIACT, CEA, Gif sur Yvette, France, 3Joliot/Neurospin/UNIRS, CEA, Gif sur Yvette, France
Synopsis
To operate a MRI system within the best conditions of
reproducibility, Quality Assurance (QA) is mandatory to prevent defects and to detect
abnormalities in subparts of the system. When using third-party or home-made
coils, it is particularly important to guaranty stability of transmit and
receive coil paths. For this purpose, we implemented a fast and user-friendly integrated
assessment and follow-up to prevent or quickly detect failures.
INTRODUCTION
To operate a MRI system within the best conditions of
reproducibility, Quality Assurance (QA) is mandatory to prevent defects and to detect
abnormalities in subparts of the system. It is even more important, when using accessories
that are not provided by scanner manufacturer, like for example coils when one
is working on investigative Ultra High Field scanners or/and using x-nucleus chain.
For this purpose, we developed a QA procedure to assess the linearity of the RF
transmission path as well as the receive performance for third-party or
home-made coils. A specific focus of this work was to setup an acquisition
pipeline and the post-processing evaluation completely integrated into the MRI
system to facilitate long-term evaluation.METHODS
Acquisition setup: For the sake of the demonstration,
measurements were performed once a week for one year on an investigational 7T
MRI system (Siemens Healthineers, Germany, Software version SyngoMR VB17) on a
1Tx/32Rx head coil (Nova medical, Wilmington, MA, USA) for which no standard MR
manufacturer assessment was available. A spherical homogeneous oil phantom
(Siemens Marcoil Service phantom, T1/T2= 300/100ms) was chosen for its
long-term stability. The reproducibility of the phantom positioning was achieved
using a holder provided by the coil manufacturer. Two protocols based on
modified EPI acquisitions were performed to control separately transmit and
receive path of the coil. In both cases, parameters were TR=5s, TE=7.2ms,
resolution=4x8x50mm3 with an in-plane matrix size of 64x32 and a
scan time of 5 sec per repetition.
Transmit measurement: The EPI protocol with 10
repetitions was used to measure signal with a linearly increasing flip angle
from 8° to 80°. To cover up the whole range of voltage available for a coil,
the excitation pulse duration was automatically adapted with regards to the
system calibrated reference voltage. Total scan time was 50 seconds. To
evaluate efficiency of transmission, signal amplitude was averaged on an 8x8
pixels region of interest (ROI) in the central slice for each repetition. Then,
the average signal was fitted against prescribed flip angle across repetitions
with a sinusoidal function considering full relaxation and perfect pulse
selectivity. The measured flip angle was then determined using the fitted
curve. The coil efficiency was finally obtained by a linear regression between
measured flip angle and applied voltage.
Receive measurement: A second EPI protocol with 2
repetitions was acquired. The first repetition was acquired without RF
excitation. The second repetition was measured with a standard RF excitation
for which the flip angle is set to 80°. Total scan time was 10 seconds. Noise
and SNR of each channel as well as the combined image were evaluated using the
whole image acquired at the center.
Follow-up process: After each QA measurement, all fitted results and
signal analyzes were automatically saved on the host computer in a dedicated
folder for a given coil. This step enabled to retrieve previous measurements
and display a long-term evaluation of the QA measurements. This follow-up
information was generated in a graphical format within DICOM images. Along with
the original series such as magnitude images, an additional series was
generated with all QA results to easily evaluate the current status of the
coil. All analyses were integrated into the Siemens Image Calculation
Environment (ICE) so that no additional steps are required to perform QA
post-processing.RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Figure 1 displays an example of data retrieved with
the RF transmission evaluation protocol for the 7T 1Tx/32Rx Nova coil. It shows
the linearity of the coil transmit capability over the whole voltage range
available. This result ensures that the coil behaves correctly for different
pulse strengths. The computed efficiency is plotted across time on a long term
basis (Figure 2) detect any loss in the transmission of the coil.
As shown in Figure 3, noise results show disparity between channels
due to various noise figure induced by coil coupling but with a good long-term stability.
As each channel does not capture the same amount of signal from the phantom,
SNR results is expected to be different across
channels. The SNR level shows good stability over time. To enhance the quality
analysis of the receive procedure, it would be interesting to integrate a noise
covariance matrix estimation as described in [1].CONCLUSION
The characterization of long-term performance of
a coil is an important factor to ensure quality of acquired data on a system.
To guaranty stability of transmit and receive coil paths when using coils not
provided by MR manufacturer, we implemented a fast and user-friendly integrated
assessment and follow-up to prevent or quickly detect failures.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1.
Use of the noise covariance matrix in array coil
quality assurance. E. M. Tunnicliffe, M. J. Graves, and M. D. Robson Proc.
Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 19 (2011) 4548
2.
Protocol for Regular Quality Control of MRI Scanners
in a Clinical Setting J. Kuijer , E. Kist , and M. Hofman Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag.
Reson. Med. 18 (2010) 5074
3.
Quality Assurance Phantoms and Procedures for UHF MRI
‒ The German Ultrahigh Field Imaging (GUFI) Approach, Maximilian N. Voelker et
al. Proc. Intl.
Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 25 (2017) 3912
4.
Firbank
et. al, Br J Radiol (2000) 73:376.
5.
Ihalainen
et al, Eur Radiol (2004) 14:1859.