On the role of physiological fluctuations in quantitative gradient echo MRI: Implications for GEPCI, QSM, and SWI

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 195-203

  Wen, Jie ^a   Cross, Anne H ^b   Yablonskiy, Dmitriy A ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

F0 fluctuation; Field inhomogeneities; GEPCI; Keyhole; Navigator; Phase contrast; QSM; R2 ; SWI

Indexed keywords

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSIOLOGY; TISSUE;

F0 FLUCTUATION; GEPCI; INHOMOGENEITIES; KEYHOLE; NAVIGATOR; PHASE CONTRASTS;

IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOURIER TRANSFORMATION; GRADIENT ECHO PLURAL CONTRAST IMAGING; GRAY MATTER; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; MAGNETIC FIELD; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PHYSIOLOGICAL FLUCTUATION; QUANTITATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAPPING; RELIABILITY; SUSCEPTIBILITY WEIGHTED IMAGING; TISSUE INJURY; ALGORITHM; ARTIFACT; BRAIN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; ECHO PLANAR IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFACTS; BRAIN; ECHO-PLANAR IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84919873863     PISSN: 07403194     EISSN: 15222594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25114     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. ∗ mapping in the healthy brain. Magn Reson Med 2014;71:1103-1107.
2. ∗ at 3T: a multi-center validation. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2013. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00095.
3. Yablonskiy DA, Haacke EM. Theory of NMR signal behavior in magnetically inhomogeneous tissues: the static dephasing regime. Magn Reson Med 1994;32:749-763.
4. Yablonskiy DA. Quantitation of intrinsic magnetic susceptibilityrelated effects in a tissue matrix. Phantom study. Magn Reson Med 1998;39:417-428.
5. Ogawa S, Tank DW, Menon R, Ellermann JM, Kim SG, Merkle H, Ugurbil K. Intrinsic signal changes accompanying sensory stimulation: functional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:5951-5955.
6. Kwong KK, Belliveau JW, Chesler DA, Goldberg IE, Weisskoff RM, Poncelet BP, Kennedy DN, Hoppel BE, Cohen MS, Turner R. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:5675-5679.
7. Bandettini PA, Wong EC, Hinks RS, Tikofsky RS, Hyde JS. Time course EPI of human brain function during task activation. Magn Reson Med 1992;25:390-397.
8. Reichenbach JR, Venkatesan R, Schillinger DJ, Kido DK, Haacke EM. Small vessels in the human brain: MR venography with deoxyhemoglobin as an intrinsic contrast agent. Radiology 1997;204:272-277.
9. Haacke EM, Xu Y, Cheng Y-CN, Reichenbach JR. Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI). Magn Reson Med 2004;52:612-618.
10. de Rochefort L, Brown R, Prince MR, Wang Y. Quantitative MR susceptibility mapping using piece-wise constant regularized inversion of the magnetic field. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:1003-1009.
11. Li L, Leigh JS. Quantifying arbitrary magnetic susceptibility distributions with MR. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:1077-1082.
12. Shmueli K, de Zwart JA, van Gelderen P, Li T-Q, Dodd SJ, Duyn JH. Magnetic susceptibility mapping of brain tissue in vivo using MRI phase data. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:1510-1522.
13. Schweser F, Deistung A, Sommer K, Reichenbach JR. Toward online reconstruction of quantitative susceptibility maps: superfast dipole inversion. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:1581-1593.
14. ∗-weighted images. Radiology 2000;217:204-204.
15. Sati P, Cross AH, Luo J, Hildebolt CF, Yablonskiy DA. In vivo quantitative evaluation of brain tissue damage in multiple sclerosis using gradient echo plural contrast imaging technique. Neuroimage 2010;51:1089-1097.
16. ∗-SWI. Neuroimage 2012;60:1073-1082.
17. Yablonskiy DA, Sukstanskii AL, Luo J, Wang X. Voxel spread function method for correction of magnetic field inhomogeneity effects in quantitative gradient-echo-based MRI. Magn Reson Med 2013;70:1283-1292.
18. van Gelderen P, de Zwart JA, Starewicz P, Hinks RS, Duyn JH. Realtime shimming to compensate for respiration-induced B0 fluctuations. Magn Reson Med 2007;57:362-368.
19. Barry RL, Williams JM, Klassen LM, Gallivan JP, Culham JC, Menon RS. Evaluation of preprocessing steps to compensate for magnetic field distortions due to body movements in BOLD fMRI. Magn Reson Med 2010;28:235-244.
20. Van de Moortele P-F, Pfeuffer J, Glover GH, Ugurbil K, Hu X. Respirationinduced B0 fluctuations and their spatial distribution in the human brain at 7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:888-895.
21. Raj D, Paley DP, Anderson AW, Kennan RP, Gore JC. A model for susceptibility artefacts from respiration in functional echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol 2000;45:3809-3820.
22. Birn RM, Bandettini PA, Cox RW, Jesmanowicz A, Shaker R. Magnetic field changes in the human brain due to swallowing or speaking. Magn Reson Med 1998;40:55-60.
23. ∗-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: application in Alzheimer's disease patients. Neuroimage 2010;51:1082-1088.
24. Ehman RL, Felmlee JP. Adaptive technique for high-definition MR imaging of moving structures. Radiology 1989;173:255-263.
25. Anderson AW, Gore JC. Analysis and correction of motion artifacts in diffusion weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 1994;32:379-387.
26. De Crespigny AJ, Marks MP, Enzmann DR, Moseley ME. Navigated diffusion imaging of normal and ischemic human brain. Magn Reson Med 1995;33:720-728.
27. Devesh R, Derek PP, Adam WA, Richard PK, John CG. A model for susceptibility artefacts from respiration in functional echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol 2000;45:3809.
28. Vanvaals JJ, Brummer ME, Dixon WT, Tuithof HH, Engels H, Nelson RC, Gerety BM, Chezmar JL, Denboer JA. Keyhole method for accelerating imaging of contrast agent uptake. JMagn Reson Imaging 1993;3:671-675.
29. Quirk JD, Sukstanskii AL, Bretthorst GL, Yablonskiy DA. Optimal decay rate constant estimates from phased array data utilizing joint Bayesian analysis. J Magn Reson 2009;198:49-56.
30. Liu T, Khalidov I, de Rochefort L, Spincemaille P, Liu J, Tsiouris AJ, Wang Y. A novel background field removal method for MRI using projection onto dipole fields (PDF). NMR Biomed 2011;24:1129-1136.
31. Schweser F, Deistung A, Lehr BW, Reichenbach JR. Quantitative imaging of intrinsic magnetic tissue properties using MRI signal phase: an approach to in vivo brain iron metabolism? Neuroimage 2011;54:2789-2807.
32. Yao B, Li T-Q, Gelderen PV, Shmueli K, de Zwart JA, Duyn JH. Susceptibility contrast in high field MRI of human brain as a function of tissue iron content. Neuroimage 2009;44:1259-1266.
33. 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.
34. Liu T, Liu J, de Rochefort L, Spincemaille P, Khalidov I, Ledoux JR, Wang Y. Morphology enabled dipole inversion (MEDI) from a singleangle acquisition: comparison with COSMOS in human brain imaging. Magn Reson Med 2011;66:777-783.
35. Liu J, Liu T, de Rochefort L, et al. Morphology enabled dipole inversion for quantitative susceptibility mapping using structural consistency between the magnitude image and the susceptibility map. Neuroimage 2012;59:2560-2568.
36. Liu T, Wisnieff C, Lou M, Chen W, Spincemaille P, Wang Y. Nonlinear formulation of the magnetic field to source relationship for robust quantitative susceptibility mapping. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:467-476.
37. Tallantyre EC, Morgan PS, Dixon JE, Al-Radaideh A, Brookes MJ, Evangelou N, Morris PG. A comparison of 3T and 7T in the detection of small parenchymal veins within MS lesions. Invest Radiol 2009;44:491-494.
38. Dixon JE, Simpson A, Mistry N, Evangelou N, Morris PG. Optimisation of MRI for the detection of small veins in multiple sclerosis at 3T and 7T. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:719-727.
39. Luo J, Yablonskiy DA, Hildebolt CF, Lancia S, Cross AH. Gradient echo magnetic resonance imaging correlates with clinical measures and allows visualization of veins within multiple sclerosis lesions. Mult Scler 2014;20:349-355.
40. Mistry N, Dixon J, Tallantyre E, Tench C, Abdel-Fahim R, Jaspan T, Morgan PS, Morris P, Evangelou N. Central veins in brain lesions visualized with high-field magnetic resonance imaging: a pathologically specific diagnostic biomarker for inflammatory demyelination in the brain. JAMA Neurol 2013;70:623-628.
41. Gaitàn MI, de Alwis MP, Sati P, Nair G, Reich DS. Multiple sclerosis shrinks intralesional, and enlarges extralesional, brain parenchymal veins. Neurology 2013;80:145-151.
42. Piñero DJ, Connor JR. Iron in the brain: an important contributor in normal and diseased states. Neuroscientist 2000;6:435-453.
43. Haacke EM, Cheng NYC, House MJ, Liu Q, Neelavalli J, Ogg RJ, 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.
44. Schenck JF, Zimmerman EA, Li Z, et al. High-field magnetic resonance imaging of brain iron in Alzheimer disease. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2006;17:41-50.
45. Stankiewicz J, Panter SS, Neema M, Arora A, Batt C, Bakshi R. Iron in chronic brain disorders: imaging and neurotherapeutic implications. Neurotherapeutics 2007;4:371-386.
46. Ge Y, Jensen JH, Lu H, Helpern JA, Miles L, Inglese M, Babb JS, Herbert J, Grossman RI. Quantitative assessment of iron accumulation in the deep gray matter of multiple sclerosis by magnetic field correlation imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1639-1644.
47. Khalil M, Langkammer C, Ropele S, et al. Determinants of brain iron in multiple sclerosis: a quantitative 3T MRI study. Neurology 2011;77:1691-1697.
48. Tallantyre EC, Dixon JE, Donaldson I, Owens T, Morgan PS, Morris PG, Evangelou N. Ultra-high-field imaging distinguishes MS lesions from asymptomatic white matter lesions. Neurology 2011;76:534-539.
49. He X, Yablonskiy DA. Biophysical mechanisms of phase contrast in gradient echo MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:13558-13563.
50. Luo J, He X, Yablonskiy DA. Magnetic susceptibility induced white matter MR signal frequency shifts-experimental comparison between Lorentzian sphere and generalized Lorentzian approaches. Magn Reson Med 2014;71:1251-1263.
51. Liu C. Susceptibility tensor imaging. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:1471-1477.
52. Lee J, Shmueli K, Fukunaga M, van Gelderen P, Merkle H, Silva AC, Duyn JH. Sensitivity of MRI resonance frequency to the orientation of brain tissue microstructure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010 107:5130-5135.
53. Wang Y, Yu Y, Li D, Bae KT, Brown JJ, Lin W, Haacke EM. Artery and vein separation using susceptibility-dependent phase in contrastenhanced MRA. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:661-670.