Franck Mauconduit1, Aurélien Massire2, Vincent Gras1, Alexis Amadon1, Alexandre Vignaud1, and Nicolas Boulant1
1DRF/Joliot/Neurospin & Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 2Siemens Healthcare SAS, Saint Denis, France
Synopsis
Universal Pulses (UP) were recently proposed as a plug-and-play pTx solution.
To extend the so-called PASTeUR package of anatomical sequences with a mapping
technique, we focused on a MP2RAGE acquisition that has shown to be robust against
receive profiles when acquired at 7T in single channel transmission. UP provide
the advantage of intrinsically correcting for flip angle variations throughout
the brain, leading to an increased SNR in regions usually left with low B1+
intensity. Moreover, T1 quantification can be obtained without the need for B1+
acquisition and additional post-processing.
Introduction
Parallel transmission (pTx) seems to be the most promising solution to
tackle the B1+ inhomogeneity encountered at ultra-high field MRI (≥7T).
However, this solution comes with a number of obstacles for routine due to the
need of subject-based calibrations (field map acquisition), data processing and
online pulse design. Universal Pulses (UP) were recently proposed as a
plug-and-play solution [1] with no need for subject-specific calibration. A set
of standard non-selective 3D acquisitions were developed in a so-called PASTeUR
[2] package including 3D GRE, MPRAGE, SPACE with FLAIR and DIR preparations. To
extend this set of weighted images with a mapping technique, we focused on a
MP2RAGE acquisition that has shown to be robust against receive profiles when
acquired at 7T in single channel transmission [3,4]. By combining the two
volumes acquired at two different inversion times, a uniform T1-weigthed volume
(UNI) as well as a T1 map can be derived easily. In this study, we analyze the
results obtained with MP2RAGE using UP and compare with a pseudo CP mode pTx acquisition
that mimics the results in combined standard 7T MRI mode.Methods
Acquisitions were performed on a healthy volunteer on
an investigational Magnetom 7T scanner (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany)
equipped with a 8Tx/32Rx pTx coil (Nova Medical, Wilmington, MA, USA). RF
transmit field maps were measured using a magnetization prepared turbo-FLASH
[5] with 5mm isotropic resolution. For MP2RAGE acquisition in CP mode, the
inversion pulse was an adiabatic hyperbolic secant pulse with a maximum available
voltage of 170V in pTx. The excitation pulse was set using a reference voltage
of 65V chosen to give the target flip angle in the central region of the brain
with 10% overshoot, as it can be the case in single channel mode. In UP mode,
the sequence incorporated non-selective kT-point pulses [6] designed on a database
of 20 subject B1+ field maps [7] and more specifically a 3.68 ms-inversion
pulse, designed with a GPU-based Bloch simulator, and a small tip angle excitation
pulse lasting 570 µs. The whole setup was performed to be compatible with Siemens
protected mode step 2.3, i.e. with peak amplitude limits of 165 V and average
power limits of 1.5 W per channel and 8 W total for the coil of interest. In
both cases, MP2RAGE acquisition was 0.8mm isotropic with a TR of 6000ms, TIs of
800ms/2700ms, an acceleration factor of 3 in the phase-encoding direction with GRAPPA
reconstruction, for a total acquisition time of 11 min 36 s. UNI volumes and
T1-maps were reconstructed using an in-house Matlab algorithm based on [3,4]. A
brain mask was extracted using bet (FSL, FMRIB Software) on the second
inversion volume in UP mode and applied both on CP and UP T1-maps to
reconstruct histogram of the T1 values.Results
Figure 1 highlights
the important signal heterogeneity of the MP2RAGE native volumes obtained in CP
mode as compared with UP mode. Figures 2 and 3 report orthogonal views of UNI
volumes and T1-maps respectively. The overall image quality is relatively similar
when comparing CP versus UP mode, noticing a significant signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) improvement in UPs throughout the brain and even more present in the
cerebellum. Figure 4 shows histograms of T1 values obtained throughout the
brain using an extraction mask. An overall 3.3% difference between the two main
modes is observed with a global shift toward higher values in CP mode. T1 mean
and standard deviation values measured within white matter ROIs depicted in
figure 3 are summarized in table 1. Locally, ROI values show a 7% increase in white
matter T1 between CP and UP mode. Moreover, T1 standard deviation confirms that
CP mode results in a lower SNR than UP mode.Discussion
Despite the
signal drop observed in the cerebellum in native inversion volumes of the CP
mode, the reconstructed UNI volume largely recovers the heterogeneity due to
reception field bias cancellation. However, the brain extraction using bet (FSL, FMRIB Software) did not perform
as well on CP mode as compared to the homogeneous UP acquisition. Therefore, the
mask obtained on UP volume was applied on both T1 maps. Although acquiring a
B1+ map is a possible strategy to improve T1 quantification when acquiring in
CP mode [8,9], it requires extra acquisition time and additional post-processing
step. Incorporating UP design in the MP2RAGE sequence provides the advantage of
intrinsically correcting for flip angle variations throughout the brain,
leading to an increased SNR in regions usually left with low B1+ intensity.
This work thereby shows that quantitative MRI methods can also benefit from UPs
to increase SNR, accuracy and potentially spare the user additional scans [9].Conclusion
This
work reports the development and validation of a MP2RAGE acquisition embedding a
calibration-free pTx set of pulses to perform robust T1 mapping in complement
with existing anatomical sequences using universal pulses. Following these
results, the next PASTeUR version should soon incorporate MP2RAGE acquisition
and inline reconstruction of UNI volume and T1 maps.Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Leducq Foundation large equipment ERPT program.References
[1] Gras et al., MRM 77, 2017.
[2] Gras et al., ISMRM 2019, p4626.
[3] Marques et al., NeuroImage 49, 2010.
[4] Marques and Gruetter, PLoS One 8, 2013.
[5] Amadon et al., ISMRM (2012), p3358.
[6] Cloos et al., MRM 80, 2012.
[7] Gras et al., PlosOne 12, 2017.
[8] Massire et al., NeuroImage 143, 2016.
[9] Haast et al., HBM 39, 2018.
[10] Leroi et al., ISMRM (2019), p315.