MPRAGE波控混叠在平行成像(Wave- caipi)中的临床应用:与MPRAGE GRAPPA的比较研究

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-01 DOI:10.2463/mrms.mp.2021-0065

Azusa Sakurama, Yasutaka Fushimi, Satoshi Nakajima, Akihiko Sakata, Takuya Hinoda, Sonoko Oshima, Sayo Otani, Krishna Pandu Wicaksono, Wei Liu, Takakuni Maki, Tomohisa Okada, Ryosuke Takahashi, Yuji Nakamoto

{"title":"MPRAGE波控混叠在平行成像(Wave- caipi)中的临床应用:与MPRAGE GRAPPA的比较研究","authors":"Azusa Sakurama, Yasutaka Fushimi, Satoshi Nakajima, Akihiko Sakata, Takuya Hinoda, Sonoko Oshima, Sayo Otani, Krishna Pandu Wicaksono, Wei Liu, Takakuni Maki, Tomohisa Okada, Ryosuke Takahashi, Yuji Nakamoto","doi":"10.2463/mrms.mp.2021-0065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare reliability and elucidate clinical application of magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) with 9-fold acceleration by using wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3) in comparison to conventional MPRAGE accelerated by using generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) 2 × 1.Methods: A total of 26 healthy volunteers and 33 patients were included in this study. Subjects were scanned with two MPRAGEs, GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 acquired in 5 min 21 s and 1 min 42 s, respectively, on a 3T MR scanner. Healthy volunteers underwent additional two MPRAGEs (CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3). The image quality of the four MPRAGEs was visually evaluated with a 5-point scale in healthy volunteers, and the SNR of four MPRAGEs was also calculated by measuring the phantom 10 times with each MPRAGE. Based on the results of the visual evaluation, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analyses, including subfield analysis, were performed only for GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3. Correlation of segmentation results between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 was assessed.Results: In visual evaluations, scores for MPRAGE GRAPPA 2 × 1 (mean rank: 4.00) were significantly better than those for Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 (mean rank: 3.00), CAIPI 3 × 3 (mean rank: 1.83), and GRAPPA 3 × 3 (mean rank: 1.17), and scores for Wave-CAIPI 3×3 were significantly better than those for CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3. Image noise was evident at the center for additional MPRAGE CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3. The correlation of segmentation results between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 was higher than 0.85 in all VOIs except globus pallidus. Subfield analysis of hippocampus also showed a high correlation between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3.Conclusion: MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 shows relatively better contrast, despite of its short scan time of 1 min 42 s. The volumes derived from automated segmentation of MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI are considered to be reliable measures.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"21 4","pages":"633-647"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ff/c9/mrms-21-633.PMC9618934.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Application of MPRAGE Wave Controlled Aliasing in Parallel Imaging (Wave-CAIPI): A Comparative Study with MPRAGE GRAPPA.\",\"authors\":\"Azusa Sakurama, Yasutaka Fushimi, Satoshi Nakajima, Akihiko Sakata, Takuya Hinoda, Sonoko Oshima, Sayo Otani, Krishna Pandu Wicaksono, Wei Liu, Takakuni Maki, Tomohisa Okada, Ryosuke Takahashi, Yuji Nakamoto\",\"doi\":\"10.2463/mrms.mp.2021-0065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To compare reliability and elucidate clinical application of magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) with 9-fold acceleration by using wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3) in comparison to conventional MPRAGE accelerated by using generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) 2 × 1.Methods: A total of 26 healthy volunteers and 33 patients were included in this study. Subjects were scanned with two MPRAGEs, GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 acquired in 5 min 21 s and 1 min 42 s, respectively, on a 3T MR scanner. Healthy volunteers underwent additional two MPRAGEs (CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3). The image quality of the four MPRAGEs was visually evaluated with a 5-point scale in healthy volunteers, and the SNR of four MPRAGEs was also calculated by measuring the phantom 10 times with each MPRAGE. Based on the results of the visual evaluation, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analyses, including subfield analysis, were performed only for GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3. Correlation of segmentation results between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 was assessed.Results: In visual evaluations, scores for MPRAGE GRAPPA 2 × 1 (mean rank: 4.00) were significantly better than those for Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 (mean rank: 3.00), CAIPI 3 × 3 (mean rank: 1.83), and GRAPPA 3 × 3 (mean rank: 1.17), and scores for Wave-CAIPI 3×3 were significantly better than those for CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3. Image noise was evident at the center for additional MPRAGE CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3. The correlation of segmentation results between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 was higher than 0.85 in all VOIs except globus pallidus. Subfield analysis of hippocampus also showed a high correlation between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3.Conclusion: MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 shows relatively better contrast, despite of its short scan time of 1 min 42 s. The volumes derived from automated segmentation of MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI are considered to be reliable measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\"21 4\",\"pages\":\"633-647\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ff/c9/mrms-21-633.PMC9618934.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2021-0065\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2021-0065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较波控混叠平行成像(Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3)加速9倍的磁化制备快速梯度回波(MPRAGE)与广义自校准部分平行采集(GRAPPA) 2 × 1加速的传统MPRAGE的可靠性，并阐明其临床应用。方法:选取健康志愿者26例，患者33例。受试者在3T MR扫描仪上分别于5分21秒和1分42秒获得两种mprage, GRAPPA 2 × 1和Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3。健康志愿者额外进行2次MPRAGE (CAIPI 3 × 3和GRAPPA 3 × 3)，以5分制视觉评价4次MPRAGE的图像质量，并通过每次MPRAGE测量10次幻像计算4次MPRAGE的信噪比。基于视觉评价结果，仅对GRAPPA 2 × 1和Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3进行基于体素的形态测量(VBM)分析，包括子场分析。评估GRAPPA 2 × 1与Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3分割结果的相关性。结果:在视觉评价中，MPRAGE grappa2 × 1评分(平均排名4.00)显著优于Wave-CAIPI 3×3评分(平均排名3.00)、CAIPI 3×3评分(平均排名1.83)和grappa3 ×3评分(平均排名1.17)，Wave-CAIPI 3×3评分显著优于CAIPI 3×3和grappa3 ×3评分。附加MPRAGE CAIPI 3 × 3和GRAPPA 3 × 3时，图像中心有明显的噪声。在除苍白球外的所有VOIs中，GRAPPA 2 × 1与Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3分割结果的相关性均大于0.85。海马的子场分析也显示了GRAPPA 2 × 1与Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3之间的高度相关性。结论:MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3扫描时间较短，仅为1 min 42 s，但成像效果较好。由MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI自动分割得到的体积被认为是可靠的测量方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Clinical Application of MPRAGE Wave Controlled Aliasing in Parallel Imaging (Wave-CAIPI): A Comparative Study with MPRAGE GRAPPA.

Purpose: To compare reliability and elucidate clinical application of magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) with 9-fold acceleration by using wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3) in comparison to conventional MPRAGE accelerated by using generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) 2 × 1.

Methods: A total of 26 healthy volunteers and 33 patients were included in this study. Subjects were scanned with two MPRAGEs, GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 acquired in 5 min 21 s and 1 min 42 s, respectively, on a 3T MR scanner. Healthy volunteers underwent additional two MPRAGEs (CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3). The image quality of the four MPRAGEs was visually evaluated with a 5-point scale in healthy volunteers, and the SNR of four MPRAGEs was also calculated by measuring the phantom 10 times with each MPRAGE. Based on the results of the visual evaluation, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analyses, including subfield analysis, were performed only for GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3. Correlation of segmentation results between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 was assessed.

Results: In visual evaluations, scores for MPRAGE GRAPPA 2 × 1 (mean rank: 4.00) were significantly better than those for Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 (mean rank: 3.00), CAIPI 3 × 3 (mean rank: 1.83), and GRAPPA 3 × 3 (mean rank: 1.17), and scores for Wave-CAIPI 3×3 were significantly better than those for CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3. Image noise was evident at the center for additional MPRAGE CAIPI 3 × 3 and GRAPPA 3 × 3. The correlation of segmentation results between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 was higher than 0.85 in all VOIs except globus pallidus. Subfield analysis of hippocampus also showed a high correlation between GRAPPA 2 × 1 and Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3.

Conclusion: MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI 3 × 3 shows relatively better contrast, despite of its short scan time of 1 min 42 s. The volumes derived from automated segmentation of MPRAGE Wave-CAIPI are considered to be reliable measures.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助