Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun;79(6):3103-3113.
doi: 10.1002/mrm.26989. Epub 2017 Nov 11.

Phase processing for quantitative susceptibility mapping of regions with large susceptibility and lack of signal

Affiliations
Free article

Phase processing for quantitative susceptibility mapping of regions with large susceptibility and lack of signal

Véronique Fortier et al. Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jun.
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: Phase processing impacts the accuracy of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). Techniques for phase unwrapping and background removal have been proposed and demonstrated mostly in brain. In this work, phase processing was evaluated in the context of large susceptibility variations (Δχ) and negligible signal, in particular for susceptibility estimation using the iterative phase replacement (IPR) algorithm.

Methods: Continuous Laplacian, region-growing, and quality-guided unwrapping were evaluated. For background removal, Laplacian boundary value (LBV), projection onto dipole fields (PDF), sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP), variable-kernel sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (V-SHARP), regularization enabled sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (RESHARP), and 3D quadratic polynomial field removal were studied. Each algorithm was quantitatively evaluated in simulation and qualitatively in vivo. Additionally, IPR-QSM maps were produced to evaluate the impact of phase processing on the susceptibility in the context of large Δχ with negligible signal.

Results: Quality-guided unwrapping was the most accurate technique, whereas continuous Laplacian performed poorly in this context. All background removal algorithms tested resulted in important phase inaccuracies, suggesting that techniques used for brain do not translate well to situations where large Δχ and no or low signal are expected. LBV produced the smallest errors, followed closely by PDF.

Conclusion: Results suggest that quality-guided unwrapping should be preferred, with PDF or LBV for background removal, for QSM in regions with large Δχ and negligible signal. This reduces the susceptibility inaccuracy introduced by phase processing. Accurate background removal remains an open question. Magn Reson Med 79:3103-3113, 2017. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Keywords: background field removal; phase processing; phase unwrapping; quantitative susceptibility mapping.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms