Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy and precision of electrical permittivity mapping at 3T: the impact of three B1+ mapping techniques.
Gavazzi, Soraya; van den Berg, Cornelis A T; Sbrizzi, Alessandro; Kok, H Petra; Stalpers, Lukas J A; Lagendijk, Jan J W; Crezee, Hans; van Lier, Astrid L H M W.
Afiliação
  • Gavazzi S; Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • van den Berg CAT; Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Sbrizzi A; Center for Image Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Kok HP; Center for Image Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Stalpers LJA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Lagendijk JJW; Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Crezee H; Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • van Lier ALHMW; Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Magn Reson Med ; 81(6): 3628-3642, 2019 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30737816
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To investigate the sequence-specific impact of B1+ amplitude mapping on the accuracy and precision of permittivity reconstruction at 3T in the pelvic region.

METHODS:

B1+ maps obtained with actual flip angle imaging (AFI), Bloch-Siegert (BS), and dual refocusing echo acquisition mode (DREAM) sequences, set to a clinically feasible scan time of 5 minutes, were compared in terms of accuracy and precision with electromagnetic and Bloch simulations and MR measurements. Permittivity maps were reconstructed based on these B1+ maps with Helmholtz-based electrical properties tomography. Accuracy and precision in permittivity were assessed. A 2-compartment phantom with properties and size similar to the human pelvis was used for both simulations and measurements. Measurements were also performed on a female volunteer's pelvis.

RESULTS:

Accuracy was evaluated with noiseless simulations on the phantom. The maximum B1+ bias relative to the true B1+ distribution was 1% for AFI and BS and 6% to 15% for DREAM. This caused an average permittivity bias relative to the true permittivity of 7% to 20% for AFI and BS and 12% to 35% for DREAM. Precision was assessed in MR experiments. The lowest standard deviation in permittivity, found in the phantom for BS, measured 22.4 relative units and corresponded to a standard deviation in B1+ of 0.2% of the B1+ average value. As regards B1+ precision, in vivo and phantom measurements were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our simulation framework quantitatively predicts the different impact of B1+ mapping techniques on permittivity reconstruction and shows high sensitivity of permittivity reconstructions to sequence-specific bias and noise perturbation in the B1+ map. These findings are supported by the experimental results.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Processamento de Imagem Assistida por Computador / Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Processamento de Imagem Assistida por Computador / Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article