Cargando…

Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate

We propose an alternative processing method for quantitative susceptibility mapping of the prostate that reduces artifacts and enables better visibility and quantification of calcifications and other lesions. Three-dimensional gradient-echo magnetic resonance data were obtained from 26 patients at 3...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Straub, Sina, Emmerich, Julian, Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter, Maier-Hein, Klaus H., Ladd, Mark E., Röthke, Matthias C., Bonekamp, David, Laun, Frederik B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Grapho Publications, LLC 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024456/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30042974
http://dx.doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2017.00005
_version_ 1783336057665748992
author Straub, Sina
Emmerich, Julian
Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
Maier-Hein, Klaus H.
Ladd, Mark E.
Röthke, Matthias C.
Bonekamp, David
Laun, Frederik B.
author_facet Straub, Sina
Emmerich, Julian
Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
Maier-Hein, Klaus H.
Ladd, Mark E.
Röthke, Matthias C.
Bonekamp, David
Laun, Frederik B.
author_sort Straub, Sina
collection PubMed
description We propose an alternative processing method for quantitative susceptibility mapping of the prostate that reduces artifacts and enables better visibility and quantification of calcifications and other lesions. Three-dimensional gradient-echo magnetic resonance data were obtained from 26 patients at 3 T who previously received a planning computed tomography of the prostate. Phase images were unwrapped using Laplacian-based phase unwrapping. The background field was removed with the V-SHARP method using tissue masks for the entire abdomen (Method 1) and masks that excluded bone and the rectum (Method 2). Susceptibility maps were calculated with the iLSQR method. The quality of susceptibility maps was assessed by one radiologist and two physicists who rated the data for visibility of lesions and data quality on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (good). The readers rated susceptibility maps computed with Method 2 to be, on average, better for visibility of lesions with a score of 2.9 ± 1.1 and image quality with a score of 2.8 ± 0.8 compared with maps computed with Method 1 (2.4 ± 1.2/2.3 ± 1.0). Regarding strong artifacts, these could be removed using adapted masks, and the susceptibility values seemed less biased by the artifacts. Thus, using an adapted mask for background field removal when calculating susceptibility maps of the prostate from phase data reduces artifacts and improves visibility of lesions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6024456
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Grapho Publications, LLC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60244562018-07-24 Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate Straub, Sina Emmerich, Julian Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter Maier-Hein, Klaus H. Ladd, Mark E. Röthke, Matthias C. Bonekamp, David Laun, Frederik B. Tomography Research Articles We propose an alternative processing method for quantitative susceptibility mapping of the prostate that reduces artifacts and enables better visibility and quantification of calcifications and other lesions. Three-dimensional gradient-echo magnetic resonance data were obtained from 26 patients at 3 T who previously received a planning computed tomography of the prostate. Phase images were unwrapped using Laplacian-based phase unwrapping. The background field was removed with the V-SHARP method using tissue masks for the entire abdomen (Method 1) and masks that excluded bone and the rectum (Method 2). Susceptibility maps were calculated with the iLSQR method. The quality of susceptibility maps was assessed by one radiologist and two physicists who rated the data for visibility of lesions and data quality on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (good). The readers rated susceptibility maps computed with Method 2 to be, on average, better for visibility of lesions with a score of 2.9 ± 1.1 and image quality with a score of 2.8 ± 0.8 compared with maps computed with Method 1 (2.4 ± 1.2/2.3 ± 1.0). Regarding strong artifacts, these could be removed using adapted masks, and the susceptibility values seemed less biased by the artifacts. Thus, using an adapted mask for background field removal when calculating susceptibility maps of the prostate from phase data reduces artifacts and improves visibility of lesions. Grapho Publications, LLC 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6024456/ /pubmed/30042974 http://dx.doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2017.00005 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Published by Grapho Publications, LLC http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Articles
Straub, Sina
Emmerich, Julian
Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
Maier-Hein, Klaus H.
Ladd, Mark E.
Röthke, Matthias C.
Bonekamp, David
Laun, Frederik B.
Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate
title Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate
title_full Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate
title_fullStr Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate
title_full_unstemmed Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate
title_short Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate
title_sort mask-adapted background field removal for artifact reduction in quantitative susceptibility mapping of the prostate
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024456/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30042974
http://dx.doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2017.00005
work_keys_str_mv AT straubsina maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate
AT emmerichjulian maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate
AT schlemmerheinzpeter maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate
AT maierheinklaush maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate
AT laddmarke maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate
AT rothkematthiasc maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate
AT bonekampdavid maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate
AT launfrederikb maskadaptedbackgroundfieldremovalforartifactreductioninquantitativesusceptibilitymappingoftheprostate