Hwihun Jeong1, Hyeong-Geol Shin1, Sooyeon Ji1, Jinhee Jang2, Hyun-Soo Lee3, Yoonho Nam4, and Jongho Lee1
1Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 2Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 3Siemens healthineers Ltd, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 4Division of Biomedical Engineering, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin, Korea, Republic of
Synopsis
We developed DeepTSE-T2,
a deep learning-based T2 mapping algorithm with retrospective B1+
estimation for a product double-echo TSE sequence. DeepTSE-T2
enables T2 mapping by retrospectively estimating B1+
information, reconstructing T2 in high-accuracy (NRMSE = 8.26 ± 0.30%). The proposed method is useful in a clinical
setting since it utilizes a fast imaging product sequence. The training dataset
consists of simulation-based data, providing flexibility in parameter setting. Applications
to χ-separation
and an MS patient are included.
Introduction
Quantification of T2
has been suggested to provide valuable information of tissues.1,2
However, T2 mapping via a multi-echo spin-echo (MESE) sequence requires
a long scan time, and suffers from a high specific absorption rate. To overcome
such limitations, various fast T2 mapping methods were introduced.3,4
However, these methods require sequence modification and are not available
widely. Recently, double-echo TSE (DE-TSE)-based T2 mapping was
developed using additional B1+ map acquisition.5 This
approach has advantages of using a product sequence and the PDw and T2w
images can be used for clinical diagnosis. Furthermore, the scan time is short
acquiring 30 slices in 2 min (for comparison, MESE: 11 min). However, the method
requires an additional B1+ scan, costing time (+2 min). In this
study, we propose a deep learning-based T2 mapping algorithm for DE-TSE.
A B1+ map was estimated from the DE-TSE images using a neural network
(i.e. no additional scan). Then the B1+ information along with DE-TSE images is utilized
for a deep neural network reconstruction of a T2 map. The results
are utilized for quantitative analysis of an MS patient and χ-separation6 for
susceptibility imaging.Methods
[Training
data] Training
DE-TSE data are generated using the maps from MESE data of 11 subjects,7
(training: 10, validation:1) utilizing EPGSLR7 and TSE
readout scheme (Fig. 1a). The training data consist of 2280 slices.
[DeepTSE-T2]
DeepTSE-T2
is composed of two steps. In the first step, a 2D U-net8
is used to estimate the B1+ map from the second echo TSE image
normalized by the first echo image. Then, the B1+ map and
DE-TSE images are concatenated as an input for a voxel-based artificial neural
network (ANN), estimating T2 values (Fig. 1b). The loss function is
the sum of the model loss and L1 loss between output and label. The model loss
is implemented using a pre-trained 2D U-net trained to estimate the forward
model of B1+ and T2 maps to a DE-TSE image.
[Evaluation]
Six healthy
subjects are utilized to evaluate the performance of DeepTSE-T2. For the quantitative evaluation,
retrospective DE-TSE images are generated from the 2D MESE data and prospective
DE-TSE images are acquired (all data IRB-approved). DeepTSE-T2 results
are compared to those of an end-to-end U-net as well as a few EPGSLR-based
fitting methods with extra B1+ information. Normalized root-mean-squared
error (NRMSE), peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity
(SSIM) between the reconstructed image and label (T2 map from MESE7)
are calculated with CSF masked out. To demonstrate robustness to B1+
variations, three data are acquired with different reference voltages and evaluated.
[Applications]
Two T2
maps (1 mm and 2 mm slice thickness) reconstructed with DeepTSE-T2
are applied to the χ-separation
algorithm6. The results are compared to those with T2
from MESE. Additionally, an MS patient data are utilized to assess
generalization to unseen data distribution.
[Datasets] (Training and validation) MESE
data in reference6
was used. (Evaluation) MESE (TR/TE=6200/9:9:90
ms, and TA=11:17), DE-TSE (TR/TE=6200/9,90 ms, ETL=5, and TA=2:24) were
acquired (common parameter: FOV=192×192 mm2, voxel size=1×1 mm2,
GRAPPA=2, 30 slices, and slice thickness=2 mm). B1+ map was also
acquired.9 (χ-separation) MESE (TR/TE=5060/9:9:90 ms, 40 slices, and TA=9:33),
DE-TSE2mm (TR/TE=8000/9,90 ms, 40 slices, and TA=3:06), DE-TSE1mm (TR/TE=10000/10.6/106
ms, average=2, 80 slices, and TA=2×3:52) were acquired (common parameter: FOV=192×192
mm2, voxel size=1×1 mm2, GRAPPA=2). 3D GRE was also
acquired. (MS patient) One MS
patient (43-year-old male) were scanned. FLAIR and DE-TSE (FOV=209×209mm2,
voxel size=0.69×0.69 mm2, TR/TE=11000/10,100 ms, ETL=7, FA=150°, slice thickness=2 mm, and TA=5:41) were acquired.Results
Figure
2 compares the T2 and B1+ maps from DeepTSE-T2
and EPGSLR fitting methods. The DeepTSE-T2 maps provide a
high-quality T2 map, comparable to EPGSLR fitting with B1+
from MESE (NRMSE: 8.26 ± 0.30% in DeepTSE-T2; 7.80 ± 0.61% in EPGSLR fitting). Compared
to the U-net, DeepTSE-T2 shows lower NRMSE values in both T2
and B1+ estimations (T2: 8.26 ± 0.30% in DeepTSE-T2 and 11.2 ± 1.48% in U-net; B1+: 5.99 ± 0.98% in DeepTSE-T2 and 7.70 ± 1.69% in U-net). Moreover, DeepTSE-T2
results show consistency even at different B1+ reference voltages,
showing the robustness to B1+ variations (Fig. 3; NRMSE errors
similar between the two methods). Figure 4 shows the FLAIR image and T2
map obtained in the MS patient. As indicated by the red arrows, DeepTSE-T2
can reconstruct T2 values in MS lesions. Figure 5 shows the results
of applying the DeepTSE-T2 map to χ-separation.
For 2 mm slice thickness, both positive and negative susceptibility maps show
similar contrasts to the MESE results. DeepTSE-T2 enables χ-separation
in 1 mm slice thickness in a reasonable scan time (DE-TSE: 7:44 min).Conclusion and Discussion
In this study, we
developed DeepTSE-T2, a T2 mapping algorithm based on
deep learning, for a double-echo TSE product sequence. Compared to the conventional
fast T2 mapping method, the method does not require any sequence modification
and fast in data processing (4 sec for whole brain).Acknowledgements
This work was supported
by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea
government(MSIT) (No. NRF-2018R1A2B3008445, NRF-2017M3C7A1047864).References
1.
Dunn, T. C., Lu, Y., Jin, H., Ries, M. D.,
& Majumdar, S. (2004). T2 relaxation time of cartilage at MR imaging:
comparison with severity of knee osteoarthritis. Radiology, 232(2), 592-598.
2.
Giri, S., Chung, Y. C., Merchant, A., Mihai,
G., Rajagopalan, S., Raman, S. V., & Simonetti, O. P. (2009). T2
quantification for improved detection of myocardial edema. Journal of
cardiovascular magnetic resonance, 11(1), 56.
3.
Deoni, S. C., Peters, T. M., & Rutt, B. K.
(2005). High‐resolution T1 and T2 mapping of the brain in a clinically
acceptable time with DESPOT1 and DESPOT2. Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine, 53(1), 237-241.
4.
Warntjes, J. B. M., Leinhard, O. D., West, J.,
& Lundberg, P. (2008). Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the
brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 60(2),
320-329.
5.
McPhee, K. C., & Wilman, A. H. (2015). T2
quantification from only proton density and T2-weighted MRI by modelling actual
refocusing angles. NeuroImage, 118, 642-650.
6.
Shin, H. G., Lee, J., Yun, Y. H., Yoo, S. H.,
Jang, J., Oh, S. H., ... & Kim, W. (2020). In-vivo histology of iron and
myelin in the brain using magnetic susceptibility source separation in
MRI. bioRxiv.
7.
Lebel, R. M., & Wilman, A. H. (2010).
Transverse relaxometry with stimulated echo compensation. Magnetic
resonance in medicine, 64(4), 1005-1014.
8.
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T.
(2015, October). U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image
segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing
and computer-assisted intervention (pp. 234-241). Springer, Cham.
9.
Jiru, F., & Klose, U. (2006). Fast 3D radiofrequency field mapping
using echo‐planar imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 56(6),
1375-1379.