Zhenghao Li1, Ruimin Feng1, and Hongjiang Wei1
1Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Synopsis
Keywords: Quantitative Imaging, Quantitative Susceptibility mapping
Conventional quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)
reconstruction methods only provide voxel-averaged susceptibility value. We
proposed a comprehensive complex signal model that describes the relationship
between the 3D GRE signal and the contributions of opposing susceptibility to
the frequency shift and $$$R_2^*$$$ relaxation. We used an
iterative data fitting scheme to alternatively determine the sub-voxel
susceptibilities and the voxel-wise proportionality coefficient between $$$R_2'$$$ and absolute susceptibility.
Our experiments on in-vivo human brain data compared with histological staining
images demonstrate that the proposed method provides more accurate results for
quantifying brain iron and myelin than previous QSM separation methods.
Introduction
Advanced susceptibility
imaging methods have been recently developed to distinguish the contributions
of opposing susceptibility sources for QSM1,2. The
magnitude decay kernel, representing the proportionality constant between $$$R_2'$$$ and the absolute susceptibility, was
considered spatial-invariant under the static dephasing regime3. However, this assumption is too ideal for modeling the real relationship
between $$$R_2'$$$ and susceptibility in brain tissue. Here, we
proposed a more comprehensive complex signal model that describes the
relationship between the 3D GRE signal and the contributions of opposing
susceptibility to the frequency shift and $$$R_2^*$$$ relaxation. We used an
iterative data fitting scheme to alternatively determine the sub-voxel
susceptibilities and the voxel-specific magnitude decay
kernel between $$$R_2'$$$
and absolute susceptibility.Methods
Improved QSM separation algorithm
In the magnetic field, the biological materials with
susceptibility $$$\chi$$$ will induce inhomogeneities, resulting in frequency shift $$$\Delta f$$$ and $$$R_2' (=R_2^*-R_2)$$$ relaxation. Both $$$\Delta f$$$ and $$$R_2'$$$ can
be formulated by paramagnetic susceptibility $$$\chi_{para}$$$ and diamagnetic
susceptibility $$$\chi_{dia}$$$:
$$\left\{{\matrix{{\Delta f=D*\left({{\chi _{para}}+{\chi _{dia}}}\right)}\cr{{R_2'}=a\left({|{\chi_{para}}|+|{\chi_{dia}}|}\right)}\cr}}\right.\tag{1}$$
where $$$D$$$ is the dipole kernel and $$$*$$$ denotes the spatial convolution. $$$a$$$ is the magnitude decay kernel,
representing the proportionality constant between $$$R_2'$$$ and the
absolute susceptibility.
These
inhomogeneities can be modeled using multi-echo GRE signal $$$S$$$:
$$S\left({T{E_j}}\right)={M_0}{e^{-\left({{R_2}+a|{\chi _{para}}\ \ |+a|{\chi_{dia}}\ |}\right)T{E_j}}}\cdot{e^{i\left\{ {{\phi_{res}}\ +2\pi f_{bg}\ TE_j+2\pi\gamma{B_0}\left[{D*\left({{\chi_{para}}\ \ +{\chi_{dia}}}\ \right)}\right]T{E_j}}\right\}}}\tag{2}$$
where $$$M_0$$$ is the extrapolated magnitude signal at echo
time $$$(TE)$$$=0ms. $$$R_2$$$ relaxation can be obtained by an additional T2
mapping scan. $$$\phi_{res}$$$ is the time-independent initial phase. $$$\gamma$$$ is the gyromagnetic ratio and $$$2\pi {f_{bg}}{TE_j}$$$ denotes the background phase at $$$j^{\ th}$$$ echo times.
The
proposed method is eventually formulated as a
two-step optimization. $$$M_0$$$ and $$$R_2^*$$$ can be firstly estimated using $$$N$$$ echo-time magnitude signals:
$$\mathop{\arg\min}\limits_{{M_0},\ R_2^*}\sum\limits_{j=1}^N{\left\|{\ln{M_j}-\left({\ln{M_0}-R_2^*T{E_j}}\right)}\right\|}_2^2\tag{3}$$
where $$${\left\|\cdot\right\|_2}$$$ denotes the $$$L2$$$ norm, and $$$M_j$$$ is the $$$j^{\ th}$$$ magnitude signal. The estimated $$$R_2^*$$$ was used in the next step to solve $$$\chi_{para}$$$ and $$$\chi_{dia}$$$:
$$\mathop{\arg\min}\limits_{{\chi_{para}}\ \ ,\ {\chi _{dia}}\ ,\ {\phi _{res}}}\left({\matrix{{{\lambda _1}\left\| {R_2^*-{R_2}-a\left({{\chi _{para}}-{\chi _{dia}}}\right)}\right\|_2^2}\cr{+\sum\limits_{j=1}^N{i\left\|{{\phi _{uw,\ T{E_j}}}-{\phi_{res}}-2\pi\left\{{{f_{bg}}+\gamma{B_0}\left[{D*\left({{\chi _{para}}+{\chi _{dia}}}\right)}\right]}\right\}T{E_j}}\right\|_2^2} }\cr{+{\lambda _2}\left\|{\chi-\left({{\chi_{para}}+{\chi _{dia}}}\right)}\right\|_2^2+{\lambda_3}\left({TV\left({{\chi_{para}}}\right)+TV\left({{\chi _{dia}}}\right)}\right)}\cr}}\right)\tag{4}$$
where $$$\phi _{uw,\ T{E_j}}$$$ is the unwrapped phase image, and $$$\chi$$$ is a pre-reconstructed QSM map. $$$TV(\cdot)$$$ is a 3D spatial total variation operator. $$$\lambda_1$$$, $$$\lambda_2$$$, and $$$\lambda_3$$$ are the regularization
factors.
The proposed method
regards the magnitude decay kernel as voxel-specific and resorts to an
iterative algorithm to fit a voxel-wise $$$a$$$-map $$$(a')$$$:
$$a' = {{{R_2'}} \over {|{\chi _{para}}| + |{\chi _{dia}}|}}\tag{5}$$
The obtained parameter $$$a'$$$ is then plugged back into Eq. $$$(4)$$$ to recalculate $$$\chi_{para}$$$ and $$$\chi_{dia}$$$, then obtaining $$$a'$$$ following Eq. $$$(5)$$$ iteratively until convergence or the iterations reached
100.
Experiments
32 healthy human
data were acquired at 3T. The 3D GRE scan parameters were: FOV=230×230×160mm3;
matrix size=224×224×80; spatial resolution=1.03×1.03×2mm3; TR=40ms; TE1/spacing/TE7=2.4/4.3/28.2ms. The T2 mapping was
acquired using 2D multi-echo spin echo (MSE) sequence with copied FOV from 3D
GRE scan (TR=3864ms and TE1/spacing/TE5=16.1/16.1/80.5ms).
The $$$R_2$$$ map was fitted from MSE
data using a mono-exponential function. The GRE phase data were unwrapped using
a Laplacian-based phase unwrapping method4. The background phase and
tissue phase were separated using V-SHARP method5. STAR-QSM6 was performed to
pre-calculate QSM map. For comparison, a recent $$$\chi$$$-separation method1 was used.Results
Fig. 1 shows the reconstructed maps of the healthy
human data by the proposed method. $$$\chi_{para}$$$ map shows high positive values in deep gray
matter (DGM) and blood vessels. $$$\chi_{dia}$$$ map reveals more negative susceptibility values in
white matter. The magnitude decay kernels in the $$$a$$$-map decreased in the globus pallidus (GP) and some
white matters. The $$$M_0$$$, $$$\phi_{res}$$$ and $$$R_2'$$$ maps are also
shown in Fig. 1D, 1E and 1F.
Fig. 2 shows the comparison of the proposed
method and $$$\chi$$$-separation’s results on the healthy subject with
iron- and myelin-staining images from literature7 and website (https://brains.anatomy.msu.edu/). The $$$\chi_{para}$$$ map reconstructed from proposed method
exhibits sparse positive susceptibility values in the posterior limb of the internal capsule (PLIC, orange arrows in the
zoomed-in area), similar to the iron-staining image. However, the $$$\chi_{para}$$$ map from $$$\chi$$$-separation shows zero susceptibility values in
PLIC. It is noted that the diamagnetic susceptibility values were clearly
demonstrated in the GP by the proposed method’s $$$\chi_{dia}$$$ map, which is verified by the myelin staining (yellow
arrows). In comparison, the $$$\chi_{dia}$$$ map reconstructed by $$$\chi$$$-separation shows barely
diamagnetic susceptibility values in the GP.
Quantitatively, Fig. 3 presents mean values
of conventional QSM, $$$\chi_{para}$$$, $$$\chi_{dia}$$$ and composite QSM in five DGM nuclei averaged
over 32 subjects. Both methods produce higher susceptibility values in these
DGMs than conventional QSM. The proposed method shows more negative
susceptibility values. The composite QSM by $$$\chi_{para}$$$ and $$$\chi_{dia}$$$ from proposed method shows more
comparable mean values to the conventional QSM than that from $$$\chi$$$-separation.Discussion and Conclusion
This study
proposed a new magnetic susceptibility separation method, which utilizes a
comprehensive complex model with an iterative data fitting algorithm to accurately separate intravoxel paramagnetic and
diamagnetic susceptibility. Previous studies pre-determined a spatial-invariant
magnitude decay kernel under the ideal static dephasing regime. Differently,
our new method regards the magnitude decay kernel as voxel-specific, preventing
the errors of the spatial-invariant kernel from propagating to the final QSM
separation reconstruction. Thus, our method could be applied to quantifying the
subtle magnetic susceptibility in brain tissue.Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (61901256, 91949120, 62071299).References
1. Shin HG, Lee J, Yun YH, et al. chi-separation: Magnetic
susceptibility source separation toward iron and myelin mapping in the brain.
Neuroimage. 2021;240:118371.
2. Emmerich J, Bachert P, Ladd ME, et al. On the separation of
susceptibility sources in quantitative susceptibility mapping: Theory and
phantom validation with an in vivo application to multiple sclerosis lesions of
different age. J Magn Reson. 2021;330:107033.
3. Yablonskiy DA, Haacke EM. Theory of NMR signal behavior in
magnetically inhomogeneous tissues: the static dephasing regime. Magn Reson
Med. 1994;32(6):749-763.
4. Schofield MA, Zhu Y. Fast phase unwrapping algorithm for
interferometric applications. Optics letters. 2003;28 14:1194-1196.
5. Wu B, Li W, Guidon A, et al. Whole brain susceptibility mapping
using compressed sensing. Magn Reson Med. 2012;67(1):137-147.
6. Wei H, Dibb R, Zhou Y, et al. Streaking artifact reduction for
quantitative susceptibility mapping of sources with large dynamic range. NMR
Biomed. 2015;28(10):1294-1303.
7. Drayer B, Burger P, Darwin R, et al. MRI of brain iron. American
Journal of Roentgenology. 1986;147(1):103-110.