The effect of low resolution and coverage on the accuracy of susceptibility mapping. Issue 3 (19th October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Karsa, Anita; Punwani, Shonit; Shmueli, Karin
• Is Part Of: Magnetic resonance in medicine. Volume 81:Issue 3(2019)
• Page Start: 1833
• Page End: 1848
• Publication Date: 2018-10-19
• Subjects: decreased contrast -- low resolution -- magnetic susceptibility -- magnetic susceptibility mapping -- QSM accuracy -- reduced field‐of‐view; Nuclear magnetic resonance -- Periodicals; Electron paramagnetic resonance -- Periodicals; 616.07548
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.27542
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0740-3194

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) has found increasing clinical applications. However, to reduce scan time, clinical acquisitions often use reduced resolution and coverage, particularly in the through‐slice dimension. The effect of these factors on QSM has begun to be assessed using only balloon phantoms and downsampled brain images. Here, we investigate the effects (and their sources) of low resolution or coverage on QSM using both simulated and acquired images. Methods: Brain images were acquired at 1 mm isotropic resolution and full brain coverage, and low resolution (up to 6 mm slice thickness) or coverage (down to 20 mm) in 5 healthy volunteers. Images at reduced resolution or coverage were also simulated in these volunteers and in a new, anthropomorphic, numerical phantom. Mean susceptibilities in 5 brain regions, including white matter, were investigated over varying resolution and coverage. Results: The susceptibility map contrast decreased with increasing slice thickness and spacing, and with decreasing coverage below ~40 mm for 2 different QSM pipelines. Our simulations showed that calculated susceptibility values were erroneous at low resolution or very low coverage, because of insufficient sampling and overattenuation of the susceptibility‐induced field perturbations. Susceptibility maps calculated from simulated and acquired images showed similar behavior. Conclusions: Both low resolution and low coverage lead to loss of contrast and errors in susceptibility maps. The widespread clinical practice of using low resolution and coverage does not provide accurate susceptibility maps. Simulations in images of healthy volunteers and in a new, anthropomorphic numerical phantom were able to accurately model low‐resolution and low‐coverage acquisitions.