Comparison of optimized intensity correction methods for 23Na MRI of the human brain using a 32-channel phased array coil at 7 Tesla

• Verfasst von: Lachner, Sebastian Florian [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Ruck, Laurent [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Niesporek, Sebastian [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Utzschneider, Matthias [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Lott, Johanna [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hensel, Bernhard [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Dörfler, Arnd [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Uder, Michael [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Nagel, Armin Michael [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Comparison of optimized intensity correction methods for 23Na MRI of the human brain using a 32-channel phased array coil at 7 Tesla
• Verf.angabe: Sebastian Lachner, Laurent Ruck, Sebastian C. Niesporek, Matthias Utzschneider, Johanna Lott, Bernhard Hensel, Arnd Dörfler, Michael Uder, Armin M. Nagel
• E-Jahr: 2020
• Jahr: 19 December 2019
• Jahr des Originals: 2019
• Umfang: 12 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 25.06.2020 ; Im Titel ist die Zahl "23" hochgestellt
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Zeitschrift für medizinische Physik
• Ort Quelle: Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1990
• Jahr Quelle: 2020
• Band/Heft Quelle: 30(2020), 2, Seite 104-115
• ISSN Quelle: 1876-4436
• DOI: doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2019.10.004
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: 7 Tesla
• Sach-SW: Intensity correction
• Sach-SW: Multi-channel array coil
• Sach-SW: Phased array coil
• Sach-SW: Receive profile
• Sach-SW: Sodium MRI
• K10plus-PPN: 1702134954

Abstract

Purpose: To correct for the non-homogeneous receive profile of a phased array head coil in sodium magnetic resonance imaging (23Na MRI). Methods: 23Na MRI of the human brain (n = 8) was conducted on a 7T MR system using a dual-tuned quadrature 1H/23Na transmit/receive birdcage coil, equipped with a 32-channel receive-only array. To correct the inhomogeneous receive profile four different methods were applied: (1) the uncorrected phased array image and an additionally acquired birdcage image as reference image were low-pass filtered and divided by each other. (2) The second method substituted the reference image by a support region. (3) By averaging the individually calculated receive profiles, a universal sensitivity map was obtained and applied. (4) The receive profile was determined by a pre-scanned large uniform phantom. The calculation of the sensitivity maps was optimized in a simulation study using the normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE). All methods were evaluated in phantom measurements and finally applied to in vivo 23Na MRI data sets. The in vivo measurements were partial volume corrected and for further evaluation the signal ratio between the outer and inner cerebrospinal fluid compartments (CSFout:CSFin) was calculated. Results: Phantom measurements show the correction of the intensity profile applying the given methods. Compared to the uncorrected phased array image (NRMSE = 0.46, CSFout:CSFin = 1.71), the quantitative evaluation of simulated and measured intensity corrected human brain data sets indicates the best performance utilizing the birdcage image (NRMSE = 0.39, CSFout:CSFin = 1.00). However, employing a support region (NRMSE = 0.40, CSFout:CSFin = 1.17), a universal sensitivity map (NRMSE = 0.41, CSFout:CSFin = 1.05) or a pre-scanned sensitivity map (NRMSE = 0.42, CSFout:CSFin = 1.07) shows only slightly worse results. Conclusion: Acquiring a birdcage image as reference image to correct for the receive profile demonstrates the best performance. However, when aiming to reduce acquisition time or for measurements without existing birdcage coil, methods that use a support region as reference image, a universal or a pre-scanned sensitivity map provide good alternatives for correction of the receive profile.