Gisela E Hagberg1,2, Korbinian Eckstein3, Enrique Cuna4, Simon Robinson3,5, and Klaus Scheffler1,2
1Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, 2High Field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany, 3High Field MR Centre, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 4Centro Uruguayo de Imagenología Molecular (CUDIM), Montevideo, Uruguay, 5Centre for Advanced Imaging, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Synopsis
Strong
background signals leading to multiple phase wraps may hamper accurate
quantification of magnetic tissue susceptibility (QSM) especially at high field
strengths using long echo times to achieve a high spatial sampling. Here we
show how different coil-combination, automated tissue masking and background
removal techniques can be used to improve QSM quality. Performance was
evaluated with regard to iron quantification in subcortical and cortical areas
in the same subjects. We found a substantial improvement in accuracy and
precision of QSM in high-field applications at long echo times through the use of
ASPIRE and removal of areas with excessive phase evolution.
Introduction
The
accuracy of local magnetic susceptibility maps (QSM) may be influenced by
several pre-processing steps, like phase-unwrapping and background removal.
Different masking procedures can be used to mitigate some of these effects by
removing voxels which do not meet the Itoh condition1. Here we
investigate how the quality of the QSM data in terms of accuracy and precision
that could be achieved with multi-echo data at 9.4T is influenced by the
procedures chosen for channel combination, tissue masking and background
removal.Methods and Subjects
Subjects (19-56y N=21), volunteering to participate
in the ERB approved study were scanned at 9.4T (Siemens Germany) with a 16ch
transmit/31ch receive array2. The transmit field was mapped with AFI3
to verify that the nominal flip angle was achieved in sub-cortical areas.
Mono-polar multi-echo-GRE-images (TE=6:6:30ms;
TR=35ms; nominal FA=11°; voxel=400x400x800μm; GRAPPA=2; PF=6/8; BW=240Hz) were used
for QSM and MP2RAGE images (TI1/TI2=900/3500ms; FA=4/6°;
TRGRE=6ms; TR=8894ms, 0.8mm isotropic voxels) were used for tissue segmentation
and DARTEL–based adaptation (SPM12) of the Harvard-Oxford region-of-interest
atlases in MNI space brought to native space images.
Three phase-data sets were generated based on
different strategies for channel combination that all assured complete removal
of phase singularities. Single-channel GRE-phase images of the third echo were
phase offset corrected by direct subtraction of the phase difference between
the first two echoes4 followed by channel combination using Roemer’s
method (MPI) or by ASPIRE5, (ASP). A third data set was generated
using the multifit approach including all 5 echoes in the MEDI toolbox6
(MED). Each data set was further processed using the STI-toolbox7.
After Laplacian phase unwrapping background correction was performed using RESHARP
(Tikhonov regularization: 10-12) or by V-SHARP (kernel size: 12 mm).
Background correction was performed based on two different masks, either based
on the signal in magnitude images only (MM); or after additionally removing all
voxels with excessive phase wrapping exceeding the Itoh condition (PB). MM was
obtained using BET in FSL, cut-off=0.1 followed by smoothing with a Gaussian filter
with a FWHM 4 times the voxel-size. For PB, the absolute value of the Laplacian
of the sign function was convolved with a sphere of size 5, and only voxels with
values < 500 were retained. The QSM maps were generated by the iterative
least squares approach. This pipeline was tested on the QSM challenge data8
set but including background correction which yielded RSME values of 80.5
(Tk-12, MM) 80.4 (Tk-12, PB), and 82.6 (SMV12, MM) and HFEN of 74.9, 75.0, and
74.8, respectively. QSM values in different Harvard-Oxford atlas regions were
extracted from cortical voxels with a GM probability >98% while no such
additional condition was used for the subcortical regions. All tabulated values
were referenced to the QSM value in the CSF. Expected iron concentrations were
calculated from Ref. 9. Transformation of the QSM images into MNI-space was
performed prior to voxel-wise averaging across subjects and calculation of the
standard deviation of the absolute QSM values.Results and Discussion
The
strong field-gradients close to air-tissue borders hampered proper QSM
calculation in the anterior brain, and lead to image artefacts and increased
standard deviations across subjects (Fig 1 a, c, e), regardless of which channel
combination that was used. Removal of voxels not meeting the Itoh condition improved
the quality of the average QSM-maps (Fig 1 b, d, f). Background removal using V-SHARP
was slightly less influenced by these voxels, but lead to smaller QSM
differences across different brain regions (Table 2) than RESHARP (Table 1). The
PB-mask yielded QSM values which were more similar across the three channel-combination
techniques than MM. Clear age-related changes in the QSM –values be observed in
subcortical areas reflecting the expected age-related increase in local iron
concentrations (Fig 2). The relation between estimated iron and QSM values came
close to previously reported values10 for the ASPIRE data, RESHARP and
PB, yielding 0.554 ppb per µg/kg wet weight tissue. This increase in accuracy could
be achieved by mitigating the inflated QSM values in the caudate nucleus (Fig 3).
On the other hand, finer details inside the sub-cortical areas could be better distinguished
using MEDI. Additional measurement using adequate phantoms are required to
verify this observation.Conclusions
We
found a substantial improvement in accuracy and precision of QSM in high-field
applications at long echo times through the use of ASPIRE and removal of areas
with excessive phase evolution.Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge funding by the Max
Planck Society, the ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of
Baden-Württemberg, Germany (Az: 32-771-8-1504.12/1/1) and the EU-LAC health program #EULACH16/T01-0118
References
1. Itoh K, Appl Opt 1982; 21(14):2470
2. Shajan G, et al., Magn Reson Med
2014; 71(2):870-9.
3. Yarnykh, V.L., Magn Reson Med 2007; 57:192-200.
4. Schweser F et al., Proc Intl Soc Mag
Reson Med 2011; 19:2657
5.
Eckstein K et al., Magn Reson Med 2018; 79:2996
6. Liu
T, Magn Reson Med 2013; 69:467‐476.
7. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~chunlei.liu/software.html
8. Langkammer
C et al., Magn Reson Med 2018; 79(3):1661-1673
9. Hallgren B, Sourander P. J,
Neurochem 1958; 3(1):41-51
10. Duyn
JH, Schenck J., NMR Biomed.
2017; 30(4):e3546