Abstract

PurposeThe widespread clinical application of quantitative MRI has been hindered by a lack of reproducibility across sites and vendors. Previous work has attributed this to incorrect B1 mapping or insufficient spoiling conditions. We recently proposed the controlled saturation magnetization transfer (CSMT) framework and hypothesized that the lack of reproducibility can also be attributed to magnetization transfer effects. This work seeks to validate this hypothesis and demonstrate that reproducible multivendor single‐pool relaxometry can be achieved with the CSMT approach.MethodsThree healthy volunteers were scanned on scanners from 3 vendors (GE Healthcare, Philips, Siemens). An extensive set of images necessary for joint T1 and T2 estimation were acquired with (1) each vendor default RF pulses and spoiling conditions; (2) harmonized RF spoiling; and (3) harmonized RF spoiling and CSMT pulses. Different subsets of images were used to generate 6 different T1 and T2 maps for each subject’s data from each vendor. Cross‐protocol, cross‐vendor, and test/retest variability were estimated.ResultsHarmonized RF spoiling conditions are insufficient to ensure good cross‐vendor reproducibility. Controlled saturation magnetization transfer allows cross‐protocol variability to be reduced from 18.3% to 4.0%. Whole‐brain variability using the same protocol was reduced from a maximum of 19% to 4.5% across sites. Both CSMT and native vendor RF conditions have a reported variability of less than 5% for repeat measures on the same vendor.ConclusionMagnetization transfer effects are a major contributor to intersite/intrasite variability of T1 and T2 estimation. Controlled saturation magnetization transfer stabilizes these effects, paving the way for the use of single‐pool T1 and T2 as a reliable source for clinical diagnosis across sites.

Highlights

  • Magnetic resonance imaging has established itself as one of the main workhorses of neuroimaging due to its ability to generate high, soft-tissue contrast that is sensitive to different aspects of tissue microstructure

  • We recently proposed the controlled saturation magnetization transfer (CSMT) framework and hypothesized that the lack of reproducibility can be attributed to magnetization transfer effects

  • In our own work,[8] we suggested that discrepancies of single-pool T1 measures across the literature might be due to magnetization transfer (MT) processes that intrinsically occur in brain tissues.[9]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Magnetic resonance imaging has established itself as one of the main workhorses of neuroimaging due to its ability to generate high, soft-tissue contrast that is sensitive to different aspects of tissue microstructure. In our own work,[8] we suggested that discrepancies of single-pool T1 measures across the literature might be due to magnetization transfer (MT) processes that intrinsically occur in brain tissues.[9] Unlike single-pool models, which assume an unique source of magnetization inside each voxel, an MT system is typically characterized by a pool of mobile protons (e.g., liquid water) in close contact with a proton-rich matrix (restricted pool[s] of protons),[9,10,11] allowing exchange between both pools but where the T2 of the restricted pool is so short that its signal decays before it can be measured With this in mind, we highlighted that VFA relaxometry methods acquire data using different RF pulse power in each component acquisition, and this results in variable and generally uncontrolled partial saturation conditions for the bound pool(s).[8] To address this issue, the controlled saturation magnetization transfer (CSMT) approach was proposed. Focusing on VFA, we implemented the CSMT framework on 3 different MRI scanners from 3 different vendors (GE Healthcare [Milwaukee, Wisconsin], Philips [Best, Netherlands], and Siemens [Erlangen, Germany]) and performed a traveling head study to explore: (1) systematic differences in obtained T1 and T2 values that depend on both the vendors used and the particular protocol used; (2) the contribution of harmonizing RF spoiling conditions on these discrepancies; and (3) the potential of harmonizing MT saturation effects through CSMT to significantly increase reproducibility of the estimated parameters across both vendor and protocol

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call