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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |