Aaron Kujawa1, Mina Kim1, Eleni Demetriou1, Annasofia Anemone2, Dario Longo3, Moritz Zaiss4, and Xavier Golay1
1Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 2Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy, 3Institute of Biostructure and Bioimaging, University of Torino, Turin, Italy, 4Magnetic Resonance Center, Max-Planck institute for biological cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany
Synopsis
A Bayesian fitting algorithm was combined with
analytical approximations of the Bloch-McConnell (BM) equations with the aim to
considerably reduce processing time. The accuracy of the algorithm was assessed
with simulated data and data from phantom experiments and compared to fit
results obtained with the numerical solution of the BM equations.
Continuous-wave and pulsed saturation was considered. The results showed
agreement between estimates and ground truth as well as between the approximate
analytical and numerical model implementations of the Bayesian algorithm. A
considerable reduction of processing time was achieved.
Introduction
Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer (CEST)
imaging is a contrast mechanism for molecular imaging with high sensitivity. Bayesian fitting has previously been proposed as
an advantageous alternative to traditional least square fitting of
Bloch-McConnell (BM) equations to CEST data and has successfully been applied to
process in-vivo data 1,2,3.
However, increased processing time constitutes the biggest disadvantage and can
take several hours per slice. Here, we evaluate the application of Bayesian
fitting with simpler analytical solutions of the BM equations which leads to
clinically feasible processing times. Methods
A Variational Bayesian (VB)
algorithm 3 has previously been successfully applied based on numerical
solutions of the BM equations 2. Here, in contrast, we apply the VB algorithm
using the following analytical solutions. For continuous-wave (CW) saturation 4:
Z(t)=(PzPzeff−ZSS)eλt+ZSS,
with normalized magnetization Z(t) at time t,
steady-state magnetization ZSS,
eigenvalue λ and projection factors Pz and Pzeff.
For pulsed saturation, a solution based on the following equation was used 5:
Z(n)=(Zi−ZSS)e−R1atdne−R1ρtpn+ZSS,
with number of pulses n ,
pulse width tp ,
pulse delay td ,
longitudinal relaxation rate of water R1a, spin-lock relaxation rate R1ρ and initial magnetization Zi.
To assess convergence of the
algorithm and the reduction of processing time, CEST-spectra of an amide
solution (equilibrium magnetisations of water M0a=1 and amide M0b=0.007,
water relaxation times T1a=3s, T2a=1.5s,
offset = 3.5ppm, amide relaxation times T1b=1s, T2b=0.015s,
exchange rate = 30Hz) were simulated by numerical evaluation of the BM equations and fit. CW (single block-pulse of 10s duration) and pulsed
saturation (50 Gaussian pulses of 0.1s duration) schemes were considered. Saturation
power was varied (B1 = 0.5,1.0,2.0,5.0 and 10.0μT).
A 15mM Iodipamide in
phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) phantom was measured on a 7T scanner at varying
saturation powers and CW saturation scheme (B1 = 1.5, 2.0, 3.0,
6.0μT, pH = 7.4, temperature = 37°C, offsets from -10 to 10ppm in steps of
0.1ppm).
Pulsed saturation data was
obtained from 12.5, 25.0, 50.0 and 100.0mM Taurine solutions at 9.4T (0.1% PBS,
B1= 0.78, 1.17, 1.57, 1.96, 2.35, 2.74, 3.13, 3.52, 3.91, 4.31μT,
pH = 6.2, temperature T = 23°C, 77 equally spaced offsets between −6 and 6ppm.
151 Gaussian pulses of duration 0.05s were applied with a duty cycle of 0.98.
For comparison, the Z-spectra
from the phantom measurements were fitted with the numerical and simplified
analytical equations in the Bayesian framework. T1a was determined
separately with an inversion recovery sequence. Flat priors were assumed for
the fit parameters.
Results
The simulated CEST-spectra and
fit results of the VB algorithm with simplified analytical solutions can be seen
in Figure 1 for CW and pulsed saturation. The fits describe the data well. Parameter
estimates agreed with the ground truth. The processing time was reduced by a
factor of about 50 for CW saturation and a factor of more than 100 for pulsed
saturation data.
Iodipamide Z-spectra, fits and parameter estimates are
shown in Figure 2. Both algorithms led to matching estimates for concentration
and exchange rate.
The fits of the Taurine data and the corresponding parameter estimates are
shown in Figure 3. The data is described well and residuals are negligible,
except close to on resonance at small concentrations. As expected, the
equilibrium magnetization determined by the fit is proportional to the Taurine
concentration.Discussion
The results show that a considerable reduction of the
processing time can be achieved without significant loss of accuracy. In fact,
we observed an improved convergence behaviour of the modified algorithm in
cases where T2a is in the order of the saturation time. The
differences of parameter estimates observed when comparing both algorithms are
negligible against the errors typically observed in in-vivo experiments, e.g. due to spill-over, or due to an unknown number of pools in the model. The widths of the resulting uncertainty
intervals are also comparable between both algorithms, thus preserving all
information about the posterior distributions. The main limitation of the
approach is that the analytical approximation is valid only for slow and
intermediate exchange rates. Parameter estimates might be biased for CEST
agents with fast exchange.
Conclusion
A considerable reduction of processing time can be achieved
with the suggested approach. Especially pulsed saturation data can be processed
much faster so that typical clinical images can be evaluated in minutes rather
than hours. The application of future improved analytical solutions in the
Bayesian fitting framework might further increase the accuracy of the fit.
Acknowledgements
AK is supported by Olea Medical® and the EPSRC-funded UCL Centre for
Doctoral Training in Medical Imaging (EP/L016478/1). This project has received
funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 667510 and the Department of Health’s
NIHR-funded Biomedical Research Centre at University College London. References
1. Murase K, Tanki N.
Numerical solutions to the time-dependent Bloch equations revisited. MRI. 2011;29(1):126-131.
2. Chappell MA,
Donahue MJ, Tee YK, et al.
Quantitative Bayesian Model-Based Analysis of Amide
Proton Transfer MRI. MRM. 2013;70(2):556–567.
3. Chappell MA, Groves AR, Whitcher B,et al.
Variational Bayesian Inference for a Nonlinear
Forward Model. IEEE. 2009;57(1):223-236.
4.
Zaiss M, Bachert P.
Exchange–dependent relaxation in the rotating frame for slow and intermediate exchange
– Modeling off-resonant spin-lock and chemical exchange saturation transfer. NMR Biomed. 2012:26(1):507-518.
5. Roeloffs V, Meyer C, Bachert P, Zaiss M.
Towards quantification of pulsed spinlock and
CEST at clinical MR scanners: an analytical
interleaved saturation–relaxation
(ISAR) approach. NMR Biomed. 2014:28(1):
40–53.