Morphology enabled dipole inversion for quantitative susceptibility mapping using structural consistency between the magnitude image and the susceptibility map

NeuroImage

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 2560-2568

  Liu, Jing ^a   Liu, Tian ^a,b   De Rochefort, Ludovic ^c   Ledoux, James ^a   Khalidov, Ildar ^a   Chen, Weiwei ^d   Tsiouris, A John ^a   Wisnieff, Cynthia ^a   Spincemaille, Pascal ^a   Prince, Martin R ^a   Wang, Yi ^a,b,e  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SACLAY   (France)

^d HUAZHONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^e Kyung Hee University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Constraint minimization; Gradient echo; Inverse problem; L 1 norm; L 2 norm; Morphology enabled dipole inversion; Quantitative susceptibility mapping; Sparsity; Tissue susceptibility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN HEMORRHAGE; BRAIN INJURY; BRAIN MAPPING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETISM; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAPPING;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; BRAIN INJURIES; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECHO-PLANAR IMAGING; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS; FOURIER ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGES; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84855422550     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: 10959572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.082     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bradley W.G. MR appearance of hemorrhage in the brain. Radiology 1993, 189:15-26.
2. Candes E., Romberg J. Sparsity and incoherence in compressive sampling. Inverse Probl. 2007, 23:17.
3. de Rochefort L., Brown R., Prince M.R., Wang Y. Quantitative MR susceptibility mapping using piece-wise constant regularized inversion of the magnetic field. Magn. Reson. Med. 2008, 60:1003-1009.
4. de Rochefort L., Nguyen T., Brown R., Spincemaille P., Choi G., Weinsaft J., Prince M.R., Wang Y. In vivo quantification of contrast agent concentration using the induced magnetic field for time-resolved arterial input function measurement with MRI. Med. Phys. 2008, 35:5328-5339.
5. de Rochefort L., Liu T., Kressler B., Liu J., Spincemaille P., Lebon V., Wu J., Wang Y. Quantitative susceptibility map reconstruction from MR phase data using bayesian regularization: validation and application to brain imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 2010, 63:194-206.
6. Ghiglia D.C., Pritt M.D. Two-dimensional Phase Unwrapping: Theory, Algorithms, and Software 1998, Wiley, New York.
7. Gibbs E.L., Lennox W.G., Nims L.F., Gibbs F.A. Arterial and cerebral venous blood - arterial-venous differences in man. J. Biol. Chem. 1942, 144:325-332.
8. Golay X., Silvennoinen M.J., Zhou J., Clingman C.S., Kauppinen R.A., Pekar J.J., van Zij P.C. Measurement of tissue oxygen extraction ratios from venous blood T(2): increased precision and validation of principle. Magn. Reson. Med. 2001, 46:282-291.
9. Haacke E.M., Xu Y., Cheng Y.C., Reichenbach J.R. Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI). Magn. Reson. Med. 2004, 52:612-618.
10. Haacke E.M., Cheng N.Y., House M.J., Liu Q., Neelavalli J., Ogg R.J., Khan A., Ayaz M., Kirsch W., Obenaus A. Imaging iron stores in the brain using magnetic resonance imaging. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2005, 23:1-25.
11. Haacke E.M., Tang J., Neelavalli J., Cheng Y.C. Susceptibility mapping as a means to visualize veins and quantify oxygen saturation. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010, 32:663-676.
12. Hansen P.C. Rank-deficient and Discrete Ill-posed Problems: Numerical Aspects of Linear Inversion 1998, SIAM, Philadelphia.
13. Hestenes M.R., Stiefel E. Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 1952, 49:409.
14. Jackson J.D. Classical Electrodynamics 1999, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. third edition.
15. Kalender W.A. Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications 2006, Wiley, John & Sons, Inc.
16. Kressler B., de Rochefort L., Liu T., Spincemaille P., Jiang Q., Wang Y. Nonlinear regularization for per voxel estimation of magnetic susceptibility distributions from MRI field maps. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2010, 29:273-281.
17. Li L., Leigh J.S. Quantifying arbitrary magnetic susceptibility distributions with MR. Magn. Reson. Med. 2004, 51:1077-1082.
18. Li W., Wu B., Liu C. Quantitative susceptibility mapping of human brain reflects spatial variation in tissue composition. Neuroimage 2011, 55:1645-1656.
19. Liu C. Susceptibility tensor imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 2010, 63:1471-1477.
20. Liu T., Spincemaille P., de Rochefort L., Kressler B., Wang Y. Calculation of susceptibility through multiple orientation sampling (COSMOS): a method for conditioning the inverse problem from measured magnetic field map to susceptibility source image in MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 2009, 61:196-204.
21. Liu T., Khalidov I., de Rochefort L., Spincemaille P., Liu J., Wang Y. Improved background field correction using effective dipole fitting. Proc. ISMRM 2010, 141.
22. Liu T., Khalidov I., de Rochefort L., Spincemaille P., Liu J., Tsiouris A.J., Wang Y. A novel background field removal method for MRI using projection onto dipole fields (PDF). NMR Biomed. 2011, (Published online http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nbm.1670/abstract).
23. Liu T., Liu J., de Rochefort L., Spincemaille P., Khalidov I., Ledoux J.R., Wang Y. Morphology enabled dipole inversion (MEDI) from a single-angle acquisition: comparison with COSMOS in human brain imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 2011, 66(3):777-783.
24. Mistretta C.A., Wieben O., Velikina J., Block W., Perry J., Wu Y., Johnson K., Wu Y. Highly constrained backprojection for time-resolved MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 2006, 55:30-40.
25. Nocedal J., Wright S.J. Numerical Optimization 2006, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
26. Salomir R., De Senneville B.D., Moonen C.T.W. A fast calculation method for magnetic field inhomogeneity due to an arbitrary distribution of bulk susceptibility. Concepts Magn. Reson. Part B-Magn. Reson. Eng. 2003, 19B:26-34.
27. Schabel M.C., Parker D.L. Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys. Med. Biol. 2008, 53:2345-2373.
28. Schweser F., Deistung A., Lehr B.W., Reichenbach J.R. Differentiation between diamagnetic and paramagnetic cerebral lesions based on magnetic susceptibility mapping. Med. Phys. 2010, 37:5165-5178.
29. Schweser F., Lehr B.W., Deistung A., Reichenbach J.R. A novel approach for separation of background phase in SWI phase data utilizing the harmonic function mean value property. Proc. ISMRM 2010, 142.
30. Schweser F., Deistung A., Lehr B.W., Reichenbach J.R. Quantitative imaging of intrinsic magnetic tissue properties using MRI signal phase: an approach to in vivo brain iron metabolism?. Neuroimage 2011, 54:2789-2807.
31. Shmueli K., de Zwart J.A., van Gelderen P., Li T.Q., Dodd S.J., Duyn J.H. Magnetic susceptibility mapping of brain tissue in vivo using MRI phase data. Magn. Reson. Med. 2009, 62:1510-1522.
32. Spees W.M., Yablonskiy D.A., Oswood M.C., Ackerman J.J. Water proton MR properties of human blood at 1.5Tesla: magnetic susceptibility, T(1), T(2), T*(2), and non-Lorentzian signal behavior. Magn. Reson. Med. 2001, 45:533-542.
33. Stanisz G.J., Henkelman R.M. Gd-DTPA relaxivity depends on macromolecular content. Magn. Reson. Med. 2000, 44:665-667.
34. Stark D.D., Bradley W.G.J. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1999, Volume III. C.V. Mosby, St. Louis, MO. 3rd edition. Mosby (Ed.).
35. Terreno E., Geninatti Crich S., Belfiore S., Biancone L., Cabella C., Esposito G., Manazza A.D., Aime S. Effect of the intracellular localization of a Gd-based imaging probe on the relaxation enhancement of water protons. Magn. Reson. Med. 2006, 55:491-497.
36. Thulborn K.R., Waterton J.C., Matthews P.M., Radda G.K. Oxygenation dependence of the transverse relaxation time of water protons in whole blood at high field. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1982, 714:265-270.
37. Vogel C.R. Computational Methods for Inverse Problems 2002, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
38. Weisskoff R.M., Kiihne S. MRI susceptometry: image-based measurement of absolute susceptibility of MR contrast agents and human blood. Magn. Reson. Med. 1992, 24:375-383.
39. Wharton S., Bowtell R. Whole-brain susceptibility mapping at high field: a comparison of multiple- and single-orientation methods. Neuroimage 2010, 53:515-525.
40. Wharton S., Schafer A., Bowtell R. Susceptibility mapping in the human brain using threshold-based k-space division. Magn. Reson. Med. 2010, 63:1292-1304.
41. Zurkiya O., Chan A.W., Hu X. MagA is sufficient for producing magnetic nanoparticles in mammalian cells, making it an MRI reporter. Magn. Reson. Med. 2008, 59:1225-1231.