Cargando…

Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla

PURPOSE: To compare different multi‐echo combination methods for MRI QSM. Given the current lack of consensus, we aimed to elucidate how to optimally combine multi‐echo gradient‐recalled echo signal phase information, either before or after applying Laplacian‐base methods (LBMs) for phase unwrapping...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biondetti, Emma, Karsa, Anita, Grussu, Francesco, Battiston, Marco, Yiannakas, Marios C., Thomas, David L., Shmueli, Karin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9545116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35766450
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29365
_version_ 1784804748772245504
author Biondetti, Emma
Karsa, Anita
Grussu, Francesco
Battiston, Marco
Yiannakas, Marios C.
Thomas, David L.
Shmueli, Karin
author_facet Biondetti, Emma
Karsa, Anita
Grussu, Francesco
Battiston, Marco
Yiannakas, Marios C.
Thomas, David L.
Shmueli, Karin
author_sort Biondetti, Emma
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare different multi‐echo combination methods for MRI QSM. Given the current lack of consensus, we aimed to elucidate how to optimally combine multi‐echo gradient‐recalled echo signal phase information, either before or after applying Laplacian‐base methods (LBMs) for phase unwrapping or background field removal. METHODS: Multi‐echo gradient‐recalled echo data were simulated in a numerical head phantom, and multi‐echo gradient‐recalled echo images were acquired at 3 Tesla in 10 healthy volunteers. To enable image‐based estimation of gradient‐recalled echo signal noise, 5 volunteers were scanned twice in the same session without repositioning. Five QSM processing pipelines were designed: 1 applied nonlinear phase fitting over TEs before LBMs; 2 applied LBMs to the TE‐dependent phase and then combined multiple TEs via either TE‐weighted or SNR‐weighted averaging; and 2 calculated TE‐dependent susceptibility maps via either multi‐step or single‐step QSM and then combined multiple TEs via magnitude‐weighted averaging. Results from different pipelines were compared using visual inspection; summary statistics of susceptibility in deep gray matter, white matter, and venous regions; phase noise maps (error propagation theory); and, in the healthy volunteers, regional fixed bias analysis (Bland–Altman) and regional differences between the means (nonparametric tests). RESULTS: Nonlinearly fitting the multi‐echo phase over TEs before applying LBMs provided the highest regional accuracy of [Formula: see text] and the lowest phase noise propagation compared to averaging the LBM‐processed TE‐dependent phase. This result was especially pertinent in high‐susceptibility venous regions. CONCLUSION: For multi‐echo QSM, we recommend combining the signal phase by nonlinear fitting before applying LBMs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9545116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95451162022-10-14 Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla Biondetti, Emma Karsa, Anita Grussu, Francesco Battiston, Marco Yiannakas, Marios C. Thomas, David L. Shmueli, Karin Magn Reson Med Research Articles–Imaging Methodology PURPOSE: To compare different multi‐echo combination methods for MRI QSM. Given the current lack of consensus, we aimed to elucidate how to optimally combine multi‐echo gradient‐recalled echo signal phase information, either before or after applying Laplacian‐base methods (LBMs) for phase unwrapping or background field removal. METHODS: Multi‐echo gradient‐recalled echo data were simulated in a numerical head phantom, and multi‐echo gradient‐recalled echo images were acquired at 3 Tesla in 10 healthy volunteers. To enable image‐based estimation of gradient‐recalled echo signal noise, 5 volunteers were scanned twice in the same session without repositioning. Five QSM processing pipelines were designed: 1 applied nonlinear phase fitting over TEs before LBMs; 2 applied LBMs to the TE‐dependent phase and then combined multiple TEs via either TE‐weighted or SNR‐weighted averaging; and 2 calculated TE‐dependent susceptibility maps via either multi‐step or single‐step QSM and then combined multiple TEs via magnitude‐weighted averaging. Results from different pipelines were compared using visual inspection; summary statistics of susceptibility in deep gray matter, white matter, and venous regions; phase noise maps (error propagation theory); and, in the healthy volunteers, regional fixed bias analysis (Bland–Altman) and regional differences between the means (nonparametric tests). RESULTS: Nonlinearly fitting the multi‐echo phase over TEs before applying LBMs provided the highest regional accuracy of [Formula: see text] and the lowest phase noise propagation compared to averaging the LBM‐processed TE‐dependent phase. This result was especially pertinent in high‐susceptibility venous regions. CONCLUSION: For multi‐echo QSM, we recommend combining the signal phase by nonlinear fitting before applying LBMs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-29 2022-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9545116/ /pubmed/35766450 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29365 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles–Imaging Methodology
Biondetti, Emma
Karsa, Anita
Grussu, Francesco
Battiston, Marco
Yiannakas, Marios C.
Thomas, David L.
Shmueli, Karin
Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla
title Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla
title_full Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla
title_fullStr Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla
title_full_unstemmed Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla
title_short Multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 Tesla
title_sort multi‐echo quantitative susceptibility mapping: how to combine echoes for accuracy and precision at 3 tesla
topic Research Articles–Imaging Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9545116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35766450
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29365
work_keys_str_mv AT biondettiemma multiechoquantitativesusceptibilitymappinghowtocombineechoesforaccuracyandprecisionat3tesla
AT karsaanita multiechoquantitativesusceptibilitymappinghowtocombineechoesforaccuracyandprecisionat3tesla
AT grussufrancesco multiechoquantitativesusceptibilitymappinghowtocombineechoesforaccuracyandprecisionat3tesla
AT battistonmarco multiechoquantitativesusceptibilitymappinghowtocombineechoesforaccuracyandprecisionat3tesla
AT yiannakasmariosc multiechoquantitativesusceptibilitymappinghowtocombineechoesforaccuracyandprecisionat3tesla
AT thomasdavidl multiechoquantitativesusceptibilitymappinghowtocombineechoesforaccuracyandprecisionat3tesla
AT shmuelikarin multiechoquantitativesusceptibilitymappinghowtocombineechoesforaccuracyandprecisionat3tesla