A MR Fingerprinting Development Kit for Quantitative 3D Brain Imaging

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Background Magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) is an emerging quantitative imaging technique that enables multiparametric tissue characterization, but its adoption has been hindered by the complexity of data acquisition and post‐processing. These technical and implementation challenges have limited its broader clinical deployment. Purpose To develop a modular MRF Development Kit (MRFDK) that enables efficient sequence design, streamlined implementation, and real‐time image reconstruction. Study Type Prospective. Population T 1 and T 2 relaxation phantom, nine volunteers (seven males and two females), five metastatic brain cancer patients. Field Strength/Sequence 3 T, MR Fingerprinting. Assessment Accuracy of T 1 and T 2 quantification was estimated from phantom experiments. Manual ROIs were drawn on brain lesions and contralateral white matter for metastatic cancer patients. Statistical Tests t ‐test, in vivo repeatability was calculated with Bland–Altman analysis on healthy volunteer scan‐rescan data, significance level p < 0.01. Results Phantom results showed high accuracy in T 1 and T 2 assessment, with absolute percentage differences of 3% for T 1 and 5% for T 2 compared to offline MATLAB reconstruction. In vivo scans of eight healthy subjects further demonstrated excellent repeatability (bias and agreement: 0.95% ± 1.85% for T 1 ; 1.78% ± 5.08% for T 2 ). In patients, metastatic lesions showed significantly higher T 1 and T 2 values (T 1 , 1474 ms; T 2 , 61 ms) compared to normal white matter (T 1 , 913 ms; T 2 , 38 ms). With integrated B 1 correction, all T 1 and T 2 maps were available for visualization within 1 min post‐MRF scan, enabling immediate image assessment. Data Conclusion A modular MRF development package enabling efficient 3D acquisition and rapid inline reconstruction was developed and evaluated in this study. Level of Evidence 1. Technical Efficacy Stage 2.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.