• Magn Reson Med · Jun 2018

    Phase processing for quantitative susceptibility mapping of regions with large susceptibility and lack of signal.

    • Véronique Fortier and Ives R Levesque.
    • Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
    • Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jun 1; 79 (6): 3103-3113.

    PurposePhase processing impacts the accuracy of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). Techniques for phase unwrapping and background removal have been proposed and demonstrated mostly in brain. In this work, phase processing was evaluated in the context of large susceptibility variations (Δχ) and negligible signal, in particular for susceptibility estimation using the iterative phase replacement (IPR) algorithm.MethodsContinuous Laplacian, region-growing, and quality-guided unwrapping were evaluated. For background removal, Laplacian boundary value (LBV), projection onto dipole fields (PDF), sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP), variable-kernel sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (V-SHARP), regularization enabled sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (RESHARP), and 3D quadratic polynomial field removal were studied. Each algorithm was quantitatively evaluated in simulation and qualitatively in vivo. Additionally, IPR-QSM maps were produced to evaluate the impact of phase processing on the susceptibility in the context of large Δχ with negligible signal.ResultsQuality-guided unwrapping was the most accurate technique, whereas continuous Laplacian performed poorly in this context. All background removal algorithms tested resulted in important phase inaccuracies, suggesting that techniques used for brain do not translate well to situations where large Δχ and no or low signal are expected. LBV produced the smallest errors, followed closely by PDF.ConclusionResults suggest that quality-guided unwrapping should be preferred, with PDF or LBV for background removal, for QSM in regions with large Δχ and negligible signal. This reduces the susceptibility inaccuracy introduced by phase processing. Accurate background removal remains an open question. Magn Reson Med 79:3103-3113, 2017. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.© 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…