4.5 Article

Rigid-body motion correction of the liver in image reconstruction for golden-angle stack-of-stars DCE MRI

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 1345-1353

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26782

关键词

DCE-MRI; motion correction; contrast agent; liver; perfusion

资金

  1. NIH/NCI [R01 CA132834, P01 CA059827]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeRespiratory motion can affect pharmacokinetic perfusion parameters quantified from liver dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Image registration can be used to align dynamic images after reconstruction. However, intra-image motion blur remains after alignment and can alter the shape of contrast-agent uptake curves. We introduce a method to correct for inter- and intra-image motion during image reconstruction. MethodsSixteen liver dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI examinations of nine subjects were performed using a golden-angle stack-of-stars sequence. For each examination, an image time series with high temporal resolution but severe streak artifacts was reconstructed. Images were aligned using region-limited rigid image registration within a region of interest covering the liver. The transformations resulting from alignment were used to correct raw data for motion by modulating and rotating acquired lines in k-space. The corrected data were then reconstructed using view sharing. ResultsPortal-venous input functions extracted from motion-corrected images had significantly greater peak signal enhancements (mean increase: 16%, t-test, P<0.001) than those from images aligned using image registration after reconstruction. In addition, portal-venous perfusion maps estimated from motion-corrected images showed fewer artifacts close to the edge of the liver. ConclusionsMotion-corrected image reconstruction restores uptake curves distorted by motion. Motion correction also reduces motion artifacts in estimated perfusion parameter maps. Magn Reson Med 79:1345-1353, 2018. (c) 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据