Ally Klassen1, James Rioux2,3, Chris Bowen3, Curtis Wiens4, Sharon Clarke5,6, and Steven Beyea3,7
1Biomedical Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 2BIOTIC / Biomedical Translational Imaging Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 4Synaptive Medical, Toronto, ON, Canada, 5Diagnostic Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 6Diagnostic Radiology, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, NS, Canada, 7BIOTIC / Biomedical Translational Imaging Centre, IWK Health, Halifax, NS, Canada
Synopsis
Keywords: Low-Field MRI, Susceptibility, Susceptibility distortion
Multi-shot echo planar imaging (EPI)
can be used to reduce spatial distortion and improve
spatial resolution in diffusion-weighted imaging; however, patient motion
between shots can result in large intra-shot phase differences and increased
artifact. It is unknown whether multiplexed
sensitivity encoding (MUSE) can
be applied to reduce these phase differences in DW-EPI images acquired at low field
due to the inherently lower SNR. In this work we evaluate the performance of
MUSE in DW-EPI data acquired at 0.5T, in terms of SNR and ghost-to-noise ratio
(GNR) as a function of signal averaging, and demonstrate that multi-shot DW-EPI
is feasible.
Introduction
Spatial fidelity in diffusion
weighted imaging (DWI) is diminished by geometric distortion due to
susceptibility-induced field gradients (SFG), particularly in anatomical areas with
air-bone interfaces [1]. One method for reducing SFG distortion is to use a lower applied
magnetic field strength, since it is established in the literature that SFG
distortion is proportionally reduced at lower field strengths [2]. Alternatively, multi-shot echo planar imaging (EPI) can
be used with DWI to reduce SFG-induced phase errors and improve spatial resolution. However, using a multi-shot DW-EPI acquisition
requires motion correction, since any patient motion between shots can result
in large intra-shot phase differences.
Multiplexed sensitivity encoding (MUSE) [3],
developed as a motion-corrected multi-shot expansion of sensitivity encoding
(SENSE) parallel imaging [4]
can be applied to reduce these phase differences. It is unknown whether multi-shot DW-EPI can benefit from SFG
distortion reduction at low-field because of the inherent reduced SNR, which
may lead to inaccurate MUSE estimation of phase. However, modern signal processing techniques and gradient and RF hardware may
provide enough noise reduction to yield sufficient signal-to-noise ratio (SNR),
particularly if used with acquisition sequences and reconstruction techniques
that minimize spatial distortion.
In this study, we evaluated MUSE reconstruction
of DW-EPI at low-field for increased robustness to susceptibility distortion.
We present a comparison of field strengths and explore the potential use of MUSE
for improved image quality and artifact reduction. We further investigate the impact
of increasing the number of signal averages on overall SNR and ghost-to-noise
ratio (GNR). Methods
A 0.5T MRI system from Synaptive
Medical was used to investigate low-field SNR limits in MUSE. This device has a
head-only design with conformable 16 channel receive coil for improved SNR and
is effective for rapid EPI because of its strong, fast gradients with a maximum
strength of 100 mT/m and slew of 400T/m/s [5]. DWI on this system has been
demonstrated previously to be comparable to clinical systems [6].
A healthy volunteer was scanned at 0.5T under an
REB-approved protocol using an axial EPI-DWI acquisition sequence, and re-scanned
at 3T (MR750, GE Healthcare) for comparison. Parameters were kept consistent
within reason across field strengths (Figure 1). A matched slice traversing the paranasal
sinuses and internal auditory canal was chosen from both image sets. 3T and
standard 0.5T images were reconstructed with their respective built-in
reconstruction pipelines. In the raw
0.5T data, signal averages were kept separate to be combined offline as desired,
allowing exploration of the impact of signal averaging.
MUSE image reconstruction was
performed in Matlab (R2020a) with the three necessary components of Cartesian-gridded
k-space, estimated phase maps, and coil sensitivities according to the method
described in [3]. Slice-specific coil sensitivities for each of the 16 receive
channels were obtained. Cartesian gridded k-space for each shot (with inherent
Nyquist ghosting artifacts) was obtained from the raw data prior to any
combination across diffusion direction, average, or channel. Low-resolution
phase maps were derived from the total variance of approximate full-FOV SENSE-reconstructions
according to [7] and applying [8]. The calculated phase variance was applied to the coil
sensitivity maps to obtain pseudo-sensitivities describing the phase
differences between shots. Finally, the inverted phase-corrected sensitivity
matrix was used to construct a full FOV motion-corrected image.
To investigate the
relationship between SNR and GNR with increasing number of combined signal averages
at 0.5T (up to six), regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn on b=0 s/mm2 and b=1000 s/mm2 images in areas of uniform noise, temporal
lobe, and ghosting. The mean of the signal and ghost ROIs were divided by the
standard deviation of the noise to determine SNR and GNR respectively.Results and Discussion
DW-EPI was visually compared at 3T
and 0.5T for SFG distortion around air-bone interfaces (Figure 2). Qualitative
reduction in signal hyperintensity associated with distortion is observed at
0.5T on the posterior temporal lobe corresponding to the internal auditory canal.
Distortion is similar across 1- and 2-shot acquisitions at 0.5T (Figure 3).
MUSE reconstruction was performed
with up to six combined averages (Figure 4a). Qualitative increases in signal,
noise, and ghosting were observed with increased averaging. Further quantitative
comparison across averages at b=0 s/mm2 revealed SNR and GNR ranges from 27.3 to 52.6 and 3.0 to
18.3, respectively (Figure 4b). At b=1000 s/mm2, SNR and GNR ranged from 9.3 to 20.1
and 7.5 to 10.9, respectively (Figure 4c). A both b-values, SNR and GNR do not scale
proportionally, suggesting that the ghosting artifact may behave more as noise
than as signal, and hence does not increase at the same rate as a function of number
of averages. Conclusions and Future Work
This study presents a low-field DW-EPI
acquisition with MUSE reconstruction for reduced susceptibility distortion. Sufficient
SNR of 20 [9] was produced with a single average and was demonstrated to increase as expected with
additional averaging. These results suggest that the raw SNR of DW-EPI at 0.5T
remains above the level needed for MUSE phase correction. This implies that
multi-shot DW-EPI may be possible at 0.5T for improved imaging in clinically
relevant areas of SFG, such as characterization of cholesteatoma. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council as well as a
Dalhousie Faculty of Engineering Graduate Award. Research on the 0.5T magnet is
supported by an INOVAIT Focus Fund grant with matching funding provided by
Synaptive Medical. Thanks to Jeff Stainsby of Synaptive Medical for work on the
offline reconstruction and helpful discussions.References
[1] J.-P. Vercruysse,
B. de Foer, M. Pouillon, T. Somers, J. Casselman, and E. Offeciers, “The value
of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary acquired and
residual cholesteatoma: a surgical verified study of 100 patients.,” Eur
Radiol, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 1461–7, Jul. 2006, doi:
10.1007/s00330-006-0160-2.
[2] H.-M. Klein, “Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” Fortschr Röntgenstr, vol. 192, pp. 537–548, 2020.
[3] N. kuei Chen, A.
Guidon, H. C. Chang, and A. W. Song, “A robust multi-shot scan strategy for
high-resolution diffusion weighted MRI enabled by multiplexed
sensitivity-encoding (MUSE),” Neuroimage, vol. 72, pp. 41–47, May 2013,
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.038.
[4] K. P. Pruessmann,
M. Weiger, M. B. Scheidegger, and P. Boesiger, “SENSE: Sensitivity encoding
for fast MRI,” Magn Reson Med, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 952–962, Nov. 1999,
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199911)42:5<952::AID-MRM16>3.0.CO;2-S.
[5] J. A. Stainsby et
al., “Imaging at 0.5 T with high-performance system components System
Components.”
[6] J. A. Stainsby, C.
T. Harris, G. A. Bindseil, C. N. Wiens, P. J. Beatty, and A. T. Curtis,
“High-Performance Diffusion Imaging on a 0.5T System.”
[7] M. Chiew, “SENSE
Parallel Imaging,” https://users.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~mchiew/docs/SENSE_tutorial.html, 2022.
[8] M. Lourakis,
“TV-L1 Image Denoising Algorithm.” MATLAB Central File Exchange, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/57604-tv-l1-image-denoising-algorithm
[9] R. S. Owen and F.
W. Wehrli, “Predictability of SNR and reader preference in clinical MR
imaging,” Magn Reson Imaging, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 737–745, 1990.