Waqas Majeed1, Sunil Patil1, Pan Su1, Rainer Schneider2, Henrik Odéen3, Dennis L. Parker3, John Roberts3, Jiachen Zhuo4, and Himanshu Bhat1
1Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc., Malvern, PA, United States, 2Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany, 3Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States, 4Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
Synopsis
Anatomical misregistration and background phase variation due to physiological motion are two major sources of inaccuracy in PRF thermometry of the liver. We propose a pipeline consisting of 3D segmented EPI acquisition, 3D deformable motion correction and PCA-based background phase correction for liver thermometry. 3D acquisition results in an increase in SNR and makes 3D registration possible. PCA-based background phase correction improves ΔT quality over a more commonly used dictionary-based method. The proposed pipeline was used to achieve 75th percentile ΔT bias and standard deviation values of 1.70°C and
1.65°C respectively over whole-liver in one healthy volunteer.
Introduction
Microwave
ablation is a novel way of treating liver cancer lesions1. Usually
these procedures are performed under CT guidance where the interventional
radiologist has no thermal feedback regarding heating in the tumor. Proton
Resonance Frequency (PRF) thermometry is a widely used MRI based technique to
monitor changes in tissue temperature in response to thermal therapy2.
However, motion related anatomical misregistration and background phase
variation are two of the key factors limiting clinical application of PRF
thermometry to guide microwave ablation procedures in the liver3. In
this abstract, we present a novel acquisition and processing pipeline for liver
thermometry to overcome these challenges. We propose the use of segmented 3D Echo Planar Imaging (EPI) to permit 3D deformable registration, and to improve signal to noise ratio
(SNR) and spatial coverage. Principle component analysis (PCA) based baseline
correction is used to remove baseline phase variation. Methods
Data Acquisition:
All human
imaging protocols were approved by local Institutional Review Board. One
healthy volunteer was imaged on a 3T scanner (MAGNETOM Prisma fit, Siemens
Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) using a prototype 3D segmented EPI sequence4
modified to incorporate interactive pause capability. The following parameters
were used: TR 24ms, TE 5.1ms, fat saturation, 2x3x3mm3 spatial
resolution, 192x105x10 matrix with 20% slice oversampling, EPI factor 9, in-plane acceleration R = 2,
100 repetitions, 1.75 seconds per 3D volume. Interactive pause functionality
was used to divide the acquisition into ~16-20s breath-holds.
Preprocessing: Each image was registered to the
first image in the series using a deformable 3D registration algorithm5.
First image of each breath-hold was discarded to avoid transient magnetization
effects. First 40 images of the resultant series were chosen as baseline images
(referred to as baseline series). The remaining images (referred to as therm series) were used to
compute temperature difference maps.
Background phase
removal and ΔT estimation: We utilized a PCA based algorithm to remove motion
related phase changes6 : Complex mean of the baseline images BAve was obtained. PCA was performed over a liver mask on the series consisting of unwrapped
complex phase difference between baseline images and BAve. First 20 of the
resultant eigen-images were retained as basis images for correcting the therm
series. Complex phase difference was computed between each therm image and the
corresponding previous therm image. BAve was used as the image before the first therm
image. Baseline correction was performed by removing the projection of each
unwrapped difference image onto the subspace spanned by the basis images.
Temporal cumulative sum of the resultant series was obtained.
For comparison, we also
performed baseline correction with the Dictionary-based approach, where the
best matching baseline image is looked up for each therm image7. For
both approaches, average phase over the mask was removed after baseline
correction to eliminate global phase drift. Resultant phase difference images
were scaled by -1/(γB0xTE×0.01ppm/°C) to estimate temperature difference
relative to the first acquisition.
Since the expected
temperature change was 0 in absence of external heating, we used temporal mean
(μT) and standard deviation (σT) of the estimated ΔT series to assess
estimation bias and variability. Results
3D deformable
registration adequately corrects inter-breathhold motion, as evidenced by a
reduction in temporal standard deviation of magnitude images (Figure 1).
Thermometry maps obtained using PCA based approach exhibit excellent precision
and accuracy (Figure 2). |μT| and
σT for
PRF measurements corrected using the dictionary-based are greater than those
corrected with the PCA-based approach (Figure 2, 3 and 4).Discussion
Our results suggest
that PRF measurements acquired and processed using the proposed pipeline
exhibit excellent precision and accuracy. |μT| and σT are much smaller in most of the liver than the
threshold for irreversible tissue damage3, suggesting the feasibility
of PRF based guidance for liver ablation. Consistent with results reported by Majeed et al6, the PCA
based approach outperforms the existing dictionary-based approach.
To our knowledge, all
liver thermometry studies to date have utilized 2D acquisition schemes.
Although these studies rely on navigators, respiratory triggering and
breath-holds to reduce the impact of respiratory motion, residual inter-scan
motion cannot be avoided. Limited spatial coverage in slice direction makes 3D
registration unfeasible, resulting in compromised anatomical precision. The
proposed segmented EPI based approach overcomes this challenge while keeping
the frame rate within reasonable limits. Additionally, 3D acquisition results
in higher SNR for a given resolution and spatial coverage.
We have chosen to use
TE = 5.1ms, which is much smaller than the T2* of the normal liver at 3T (14.5±6.7ms)8. Although TE = T2* is the optimal choice of TE for PRF
thermometry8, TE values smaller than T2* of the normal tissue may be
required in practice to avoid intravoxel dephasing due to B0 inhomogeneity
induced by the ablation device. 3D acquisition may prove crucial to counteract
the resulting loss of temperature sensitivity and SNR.
The interactive pause
functionality described in this study enables multi-breathhold acquisitions
without the need to stop the scan. Additionally, it can be used to pause the
acquisition during microwave-based ablation to avoid unnecessary acquisition of
noise corrupted images.
Future work will focus
on evaluation on a larger sample, further protocol optimization and comparison
with additional existing approaches. Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
- Simon, Caroline J., Damian E. Dupuy, and William W. Mayo-Smith. "Microwave ablation: principles and applications." Radiographics 25.suppl_1 (2005): S69-S83.
- Rieke, Viola, and Kim Butts Pauly. "MR thermometry." Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27.2 (2008): 376-390.
- Kägebein, Urte, et al. "Motion correction in proton resonance frequency–based thermometry in the liver." Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27.1 (2018): 53-61.
- Odéen, Henrik, et al. "Sampling strategies for subsampled segmented EPI PRF thermometry in MR guided high intensity focused ultrasound." Medical physics 41.9 (2014).
- Fieseler, Michael, et al. "Motion estimation in PET-MRI based on dual registration: preliminary results for human data." EJNMMI physics 1. Suppl 1 (2014).
- Majeed, Waqas, et al. “A Principal Component Analysis based Multi-baseline Phase Correction Method for PRF Thermometry.” Proceedings of ISMRM 27th Annual Meeting & Exhibition (2019): 3818.
- Roujol, Sébastien, et al. "Real‐time MR‐thermometry and dosimetry for interventional guidance on abdominal organs." Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 63.4 (2010): 1080-1087.
- Holbrook, Andrew B., et al. "Real‐time MR thermometry for monitoring HIFU ablations of the liver." Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 63.2 (2010): 365-373.