4.5 Article

Multipeak Fat-Corrected Complex R2*Relaxometry: Theory, Optimization, and Clinical Validation

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 70, Issue 5, Pages 1319-1331

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24593

Keywords

R2*relaxometry; iron overload; quantitative imaging biomarkers; Cramer-Rao bound

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 DK083380, R01 DK088925, RC1 EB010384, R01 DK096169]
  2. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) Accelerator Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo develop R2* mapping techniques corrected for confounding factors and optimized for noise performance. Theory and MethodsConventional R2* mapping is affected by two key confounding factors: noise-related bias and the presence of fat in tissue. Noise floor effects introduce bias in magnitude-based reconstructions, particularly at high R2* values. The presence of fat, if uncorrected, introduces severe protocol-dependent bias. In this work, the bias/noise properties of different R2* mapping reconstructions (magnitude- and complex-fitting, fat-uncorrected, and fat-corrected) are characterized using Cramer-Rao Bound analysis, simulations, and in vivo data. A framework for optimizing the choice of echo times is provided. Finally, the robustness of liver R2* mapping in the presence of fat is evaluated in 28 subjects. ResultsFat-corrected R2* mapping removes fat-related bias without noise penalty over a wide range of R2* values. Complex nonlinear least-squares fitted and fat-corrected R2* reconstructions that account for the spectral complexity of fat provide robust R2* estimates with low bias and optimized noise performance over a wide range of echo times combinations and R2* values. ConclusionThe use of complex fitting and fat-correction improves the robustness, noise performance, and accuracy of R2* measurements, and are necessary to establish R2* as quantitative imaging biomarker in the liver. Magn Reson Med 70:1319-1331, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, 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