Marco Fiorito1, Maksym Yushchenko1, Davide Cicolari2, Mathieu Sarracanie1, and Najat Salameh1
1Center for Adapatable MRI Technology (AMT center), Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Allschwil, Switzerland, 2Department of Physics, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
Synopsis
$$$T_1$$$ mapping in MRI can be employed
in a variety of techniques for diagnosis and treatment follow-up, but generally
suffers from long acquisition times. Little effort has been put in low magnetic
field regimes, where sensitivity is further impeded. Nevertheless, low field provides
higher $$$T_1$$$ dispersion and favours adaptable scanner designs, suitable for dedicated
applications such as MRI of body extremities. Here, we assess our newly
developed interleaved, Look-Locker based $$$T_1$$$ mapping sequence in calibrated
samples, and we present a first in vivo $$$T_1$$$ map of a volunteer’s hand at
0.1 T.
Introduction
Low field is gaining
popularity within the MRI community, with potential to provide lower costs, simpler
installation and maintenance1,2,3. In particular, the increased flexibility
regarding scanner geometries and designs, along with the improved patient
comfort make low field MRI an appealing choice when it comes to imaging the
musculoskeletal (MSK) system and body extremities4,5. Lower magnetic
fields can also be an asset to reduce the susceptibility artifacts generated at
the tissue-bone interface6, or caused by magnetic implants and joint prostheses7.
Quantitative MRI has proven
valuable in a wide range of MSK diagnosis and treatments8. $$$T_2$$$ relaxation
maps have shown promising results to assess disease involvement in Duchenne
muscular dystrophy9. $$$T_1$$$ relaxation was found to be a good predictor
of bone strength10, and $$$T_1$$$ maps are clinically useful to determine
the glycosaminoglycan content in cartilage11. Given the linear
dependence on temperature12, $$$T_1$$$ can also represent an alternative to
proton resonance frequency shift for temperature mapping, for instance in MR-guided
focused ultrasound for thermal therapies13 and pain alleviation14.
Despite naturally benefiting
from increased $$$T_1$$$ dispersion15, quantitative mapping techniques have
not yet been extensively explored within the low field regime. Here we
investigate the use of a multi-slice, interleaved, Look-Locker-based 2D-GRE
sequence for $$$T_1$$$ mapping at 0.1 T. The accuracy of the $$$T_1$$$ estimation was
initially assessed in calibrated samples, before further assessing the feasibility
of the technique in vivo in a healthy volunteer’s hand.Material & Methods
The proposed multi-slice, interleaved,
Look-Locker-based 2D-GRE sequence16 is presented in Fig. 1. The
sequence was initially tested on 15 previously calibrated samples (water + MnCl2),
subdivided into three groups (Fig. 2). A first saturation pulse was followed by
a set of $$$\alpha$$$ pulses (nominal value 5 °), spaced
by TI = 0.05 s. 39 images were acquired for each batch
(TR/TE = 2000/5.305 ms, in-plane resolution = 3x3 mm2,
slice thickness = 20 mm, matrix = 64x35x3, 70 % sampling in phase encoding
direction, pixel bandwidth = 312 Hz). The whole acquisition process took 150 s
for 3 averages. $$$T_1$$$
reconstruction was performed in a pixel-wise manner using the following model:
$$M_z(t) = M_0^*(1-e^{-t/T_1^*}),$$
where$$$M_z$$$ and $$$M_0^*$$$ are
the net longitudinal magnetisation at time t and after full recovery. $$$T_1^*$$$ is
the apparent relaxation typical of the Look-Locker approach. $$$T_1$$$ can
be inferred by inserting $$$T_1^*$$$ in the following equation:
$$\frac{1}{T_1}=\frac{1}{T_1^*}+\frac{\ln(\cos\alpha)}{TI}.$$
A flip angle map (separately
acquired) was used to account for $$$B_1$$$ inhomogeneities17.
The same sequence was employed
for the in vivo acquisition of $$$T_1$$$ maps of a volunteer’s hand.
Here, TI = 25 ms was chosen, leading to a stack of 79 images. In this case, 12
averages were used, for a total scan time of 600 s.
All images were acquired using
a resistive biplanar MRI system (Bouhnik S.A.S., France) operating at 0.1
T. No magnetic nor
radiofrequency shielding was applied.Results
A comparison between the measured
and expected $$$T_1$$$ maps of each sample group is presented in Fig. 3. The
$$$T_1$$$ distribution within each individual sample is shown in the box
plot in Fig. 4. Here the black line points out the expected values.
The reconstructed in vivo
$$$T_1$$$ map is given in Fig. 5, together with a corresponding anatomical
image. Bone structures display very short $$$T_1$$$s, while the highest
mapped values do not exceed 0.4 s.Discussion
Consistently
with previous reports on the Look-Locker approach18, $$$T_1$$$ in each
vial is generally underestimated. Nevertheless, the extracted maps lie within
50 % error of the expected calibrated values for two out of three slices. Given
the chosen parameters, the shortest and longest investigated $$$T_1$$$s are
inherently more prone to imprecision. Longer TRs could improve the estimation
of long T1s (at the expense of time), yet the values measured in vivo
suggest that the chosen TR is suitable for low-field clinical use. Key to an
accurate sampling of $$$T_1$$$ recovery curves, the interleaved architecture of the
sequence also allows for further reduction of the $$$T_1$$$ , at the expense of a lower
number of slices. In that sense, the shorter TI selected for the in vivo
images is expected to help retrieve a more precise $$$T_1$$$ for bones, which
were estimated around 0.1 s. Despite the coarse resolution, the proposed
approach successfully associated plausible $$$T_1$$$ values to the main anatomical
parts of a human hand. Further acceleration of the sequence can result in
increased SNR by unit time, which in turn can further reduce fluctuations in $$$T_1$$$ estimation (shown in Fig. 3) and allow a finer resolution.Conclusion
Here, we have assessed the
performance of our proposed $$$T_1$$$ mapping sequence in calibrated
samples covering a broad range of relaxation times (0.051 - 1.796 s).
The same sequence could successfully provide an in vivo $$$T_1$$$ map of a volunteer’s hand in
10 min. Considering the multiple applications of $$$T_1$$$ mapping, the proposed
technique can represent an asset for the diagnosis and treatment of a variety
of diseases, especially focused on body extremities.Acknowledgements
Swiss
National Science Foundation Grant No. PP00P2_170575.
Swiss
National Science Foundation Grant No. PCEFP2_186861.
References
1Sarracanie, M.,
et al. (2015). Low-cost high-performance MRI. Scientific reports, 5(1),
1-9.
2Sarracanie, M.,
& Salameh, N. (2020). Low-field MRI: how low can we go? A fresh view on an
old debate. Front Phys, 8, 172.
3Wald, L. L.,
et al. (2020).
Low‐cost and portable MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 52(3),
686-696.
4Ghazinoor, S., et
al. (2007). Low‐field musculoskeletal MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance
Imaging: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 25(2), 234-244.
5Lindegaard, H. M., et al. (2006).
Low-cost, low-field dedicated extremity magnetic resonance imaging in early
rheumatoid arthritis: a 1-year follow-up study. Annals of the Rheumatic
Diseases, 65(9), 1208-1212.
6Farahani, K., et
al. (1990). Effect of field strength on susceptibility artifacts in
magnetic resonance imaging. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 14(6),
409-413.
7Graf, H., et
al. (2005). RF artifacts caused by metallic implants or instruments which
get more prominent at 3 T: an in vitro study. Magnetic resonance imaging,
23(3), 493-499.
8de Mello, R., et al. (2019).
Quantitative MRI Musculoskeletal Techniques: An Update. American
Journal of Roentgenology, 213(3), 524-533.
9Wokke, B. H., et
al. (2014). Quantitative MRI and strength measurements in the assessment of
muscle quality in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscular Disorders, 24(5),
409-416.
10Endo, K. et al.
(2016), K. MRI T1 map value can be a prediction of bone strength of cancellous
bone. Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society Orlando, FL March
5-8, 2016. J. Orthop. Res., 34(S1).
11Sur, S., et
al. (2009). High resolution fast T1 mapping technique for dGEMRIC. Journal
of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Official Journal of the International Society
for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 30(4), 896-900.
12Nelson, T. R.,
& Tung, S. M. (1987). Temperature dependence of proton relaxation times in
vitro. Magnetic resonance imaging, 5(3), 189-199.
13Hynynen, K.
(2010). MRI-guided focused ultrasound treatments. Ultrasonics, 50(2),
221-229.
14Foley, J. L., et
al. (2008). Effects of high‐intensity focused ultrasound on nerve
conduction. Muscle & Nerve: Official Journal of the American Association
of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, 37(2), 241-250.
15Fischer, H. W., et
al. (1990). Nuclear relaxation of human brain gray and white matter:
analysis of field dependence and implications for MRI. Magnetic resonance in
medicine, 16(2), 317-334.
16Fiorito, M., et
al. (2020). Low field MR thermometry with a fast, interleaved Look-Locker based
T1 mapping approach. Proceedings of the 2020 ISMRM & SMRT Virtual
Conference & Exhibition, August 8-14, 2020.
17Balezeau, F., et
al. (2011). Mapping of low flip angles in magnetic resonance. Physics in
Medicine & Biology, 56(20), 6635.
18Stikov, N., et
al. (2015). On the accuracy of T1 mapping: searching for common ground. Magnetic
resonance in medicine, 73(2), 514-522.