Premium
Confounding factors in breast magnetic resonance fingerprinting: B 1 + , slice profile, and diffusion effects
Author(s) -
Nolte Teresa,
Scholten Hannah,
GrossWeege Nicolas,
Amthor Thomas,
Koken Peter,
Doneva Mariya,
Schulz Volkmar
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.28545
Subject(s) - aliasing , spiral (railway) , magnetic resonance imaging , nuclear magnetic resonance , diffusion , confounding , mathematics , statistics , physics , materials science , computer science , artificial intelligence , mathematical analysis , medicine , undersampling , radiology , thermodynamics
Purpose Magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) offers rapid quantitative imaging but may be subject to confounding effects (CE) if these are not included in the model‐based reconstruction. This study characterizes the influence of in‐plane B 1 + , slice profile and diffusion effects on T 1 and T 2 estimation in the female breast at 1.5T. Methods Simulations were used to predict the influence of each CE on the accuracy of MRF and to investigate the influence of electronic noise and spiral aliasing artefacts. The experimentally observed bias in regions of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) and fatty tissue (FT) was analyzed for undersampled spiral breast MRF data of 6 healthy volunteers by performing MRF reconstruction with and without a CE. Results Theoretic analysis predicts T 1 under‐/T 2 overestimation if the nominal flip angles are underestimated and inversely, T 1 under‐/T 2 overestimation if omitting slice profile correction, and T 1 under‐/T 2 underestimation if omitting diffusion in the signal model. Averaged over repeated signal simulations, including spiral aliasing artefacts affected precision more than accuracy. Strong in‐plane B 1 + effects occurred in vivo, causing T 2 left–right inhomogeneity between both breasts. Their correction decreased the T 2 difference from 29 to 5 ms in FGT and from 29 to 9 ms in FT. Slice profile correction affected FGT T 2 most strongly, resulting in −22% smaller values. For the employed spoiler gradient strengths, diffusion did not affect the parameter maps, corresponding well with theoretic predictions. Conclusion Understanding CEs and their relative significance for an MRF sequence is important when defining an MRF signal model for accurate parameter mapping.