Zahra Shams1, Vincent Oltman Boer2, Dennis W.J. Klomp1, Jannie P. Wijnen1, and Evita Wiegers1
1Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
Synopsis
This study compares different
crushing schemes for short-TE semi-LASER at 7T; minimal crushers, DOTCOPS and
newly designed Adaptive crusher scheme. Maintaining a short echo time is traded
for optimal spoiling of unwanted coherences.
Introduction
One of the important aspects of developing an MRS pulse
sequence is to eliminate artifacts caused by unwanted excitations and spurious
echoes1. This can be fulfilled by a combination of phase cycling and
the proper design of gradient spoilers surrounding the refocusing pulses1,2.
Recently, the DOTCOPS (Dephasing optimization through coherence order pathway
selection) algorithm was introduced3, which numerically optimizes crusher
schemes. Although DOTCOPS seems to be a very effective way of crushing, it
comes with a cost; the minimum echo time is prolonged and the diffusion
weighting increases due to the relatively high number of crusher gradients.
In this study we compare crusher schemes for short echo time
semi-LASER MRS at 7 Tesla. We
used the DOTCOPS algorithm to design a new crushing scheme in which the crushers were optimized based on the area
and orientation of the slice-selective gradients, and compared this to
the originally proposed DOTCOPS crusher scheme and a conventional crusher
scheme4.Methods
The DOTCOPS algorithm was run for semi-LASER with a 16-step
cogwheel phase cycling. The relative crushing areas for our new crusher scheme
(Adaptive; Figure 1C), original DOTCOPS crusher scheme (DOTCOPS; Figure 1B) and
conventional crusher scheme (Conventional; Figure 1A) are reported in Table 1. In
the Adaptive scheme, the slice selective gradients were considered to act as
crushers, and their areas were taken into account when calculating the crusher areas.
Therefore, the minimum echo-time is smaller than for the DOTCOPS crusher
scheme.
Experiments
We performed the measurements on a 7T MR scanner (Philips, Achieva, Best, NL) using
a 32-channel receive-only 8-channel transmit coil (Nova Medical). We included 5
healthy subjects (Age: 25-38 years). A
T1-weighted anatomical image (T1 3D TFE; 1mm3 isotropic voxel) was
used for positioning two MRS voxels (2×2×2cm3) in the frontal and occipital
lobe. MR spectra were acquired (semi-LASER, TE=36ms , TR=5s, NSA=32) using the
schemes as presented in Figure 1. We selected the coronal voxel orientation, as
this proved to be most prone to unwanted coherences.
In addition, we evaluated the crushing performance of
DOTCOPS and Adaptive with a TE of 30 ms with opposite crusher gradient polarity
(z-direction) in a voxel (27cm3 isotropic) in the frontal lobe. To
fit the DOTCOPS scheme within this TE, we reduced the crusher durations to 0.5 ms.
The three crusher schemes were compared in terms of SNR (i.e.,
the amplitude of the NAA peak over the standard deviation of the noise between
10-11 ppm), quantification accuracy and b-values. Spectra were analyzed using
LCModel5 using the unsuppressed water signal as a reference, only
including concentrations quantified with a CRLB<30%.Results
Figure 2 shows the spectra acquired with the three crushing
schemes. For the voxel located in the frontal lobe, Conventional and DOTCOPS
performed better than Adaptive in suppressing the unwanted signals, having more
consistency across experiments. Spectra from Conventional are more prone to
errors in the 1-2 ppm and 2.1-2.5 ppm range, which can also
be seen in the voxel in the visual cortex. Here, spectra resulting from the
Conventional scheme were contaminated with lipid signals from outside the voxel.
The mean SNR was very comparable for the three crusher
schemes (Figure
3A). An effective crushing scheme is of importance for estimating metabolites
levels. Metabolites resonating in the regions with large variability are
quantified very different between the schemes (Figure 3B). For instance, conventional
crushers resulted in an incorrect quantification of lactate and alanine because
of the outer volume lipid contamination.
When shortening the TE to its minimum of 30ms, the Adaptive scheme
can be optimized with changing the polarity of the crushers. This results in
better performance compared to the DOTCOPS scheme with fixed polarities (Figure
4).
The amount of diffusion weighting for Conventional, DOTCOPS
and Adaptive is 7.88, 15.58 and 8.48 s/mm2 respectively.
Discussion and conclusions
We compared three crusher schemes for short TE semi-LASER at
7T: Conventional, DOTCOPS and Adaptive crushers. The least spurious echoes were
observed in MR obtained with the DOTCOPS crusher scheme in both voxel positions.
The Conventional scheme has the lowest b-value. However, the b-value for all
schemes is low, and it is therefore unlikely that diffusion weighting led to
significantly reduced metabolites amplitudes. On the other hand, diffusion
weighting might lead to increased sensitivity to motion and pulsation,
especially when the time between de- and re-phasing is large.
In the Adaptive scheme, the crusher areas were adapted
according to the area of the slice selective gradients. The adaptive scheme can
be of use to reduce the echo time and keep good crushing performance in areas
of relative high B0 inhomogeneity with the right choice for polarity of the
crushers. As illustrated by Figure 2, a local B0 gradient can act as a
rewinding gradient, causing stimulated echoes in the signal. Therefore, in
further research it is recommended to acquire a B0 map prior to performing
spectroscopy and use the information on local B0 field gradients in the crusher
scheme design to avoid spurious echoes on an individual basis.
In conclusion, there is an inherent tradeoff between optimal
dephasing of unwanted coherences using large crusher gradients, and maintaining
a short echo time in single-voxel MRS sequences.Acknowledgements
We thank dr. Itamar Ronen for his help with determining the
b-values of the different crusher schemes.
Furthermore we like to thank Eurostars IMAGINE for financial
support.References
1. Hennig J. The application
of phase rotation for localized in vivo proton spectroscopy with short echo
times. J. Magn. Reson. 1992; 96: 40–49.
2. Bain AD. Coherence levels
and coherence pathways in NMR. A simple way to design phase cycling procedures.
J Magn Reson. 1984;56:418–427.
3. Landheer K, Juchem C.
Dephasing optimization through coherence order pathway selection (DOTCOPS) for
improved crusher schemes in MR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2019;
81(4):2209-2222.
4. Boer VO, van Lier AL,
Hoogduin JM, Wijnen JP, Luijten PR, Klomp DW. 7‐T (1) H MRS with adiabatic
refocusing at short TE using radiofrequency focusing with a dual‐channel volume
trans- mit coil. NMR Biomed. 2011;24:1038–1046.
5. Provencher SW. Estimation
of metabolite concentrations from localized in vivo proton NMR spectra. Magn
Reson Med. 1993;30(6):672-679.