4.5 Article

Optimization and Validation of Methods for Mapping of the Radiofrequency Transmit Field at 3T

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 229-238

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22421

Keywords

RF mapping; quantitative MRI; flip-angle correction; B(1)(+); B(1)

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Volkswagen Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

MRI techniques such as quantitative imaging and parallel transmit require precise knowledge of the radio-frequency transmit field (B(1)(+)). Three published methods were optimized for robust B(1)(+) mapping at 3T in the human brain: three-dimensional (3D) actual flip angle imaging (AFI), 3D echo-planar imaging (EPI), and two-dimensional (2D) stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM). We performed a comprehensive comparison of the methods, focusing on artifacts, reproducibility, and accuracy compared to a reference 20 double angle method. For the 3D AFI method, the addition of flow-compensated gradients for diffusion damping reduced the level of physiological artifacts and improved spoiling of transverse coherences. Correction of susceptibility-induced artifacts alleviated image distortions and improved the accuracy of the 3D EPI imaging method. For the 2D STEAM method, averaging over multiple acquisitions reduced the impact of physiological noise and a new calibration method enhanced the accuracy of the B(1)(+) maps. After optimization, all methods yielded low noise B(1)(+) maps (below 2 percentage units), of the nominal flip angle value (p.u.) with a systematic bias less than 5 p.u. units. Full brain coverage was obtained in less than 5 min. The 3D AFI method required minimal postprocessing and showed little sensitivity to off-resonance and physiological effects. The 3D EPI method showed the highest level of reproducibility. The 20 STEAM method was the most time-efficient technique. Magn Reson Med 64:229-238, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available