Intersubject specific absorption rate variability analysis through construction of 23 realistic body models for prostate imaging at 7T

Purpose For ultrahigh field (UHF) MRI, the expected local specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution is usually calculated by numerical simulations using a limited number of generic body models and adding a safety margin to take into account intersubject variability. Assessment of this variability...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Magnetic resonance in medicine Ročník 81; číslo 3; s. 2106 - 2119
Hlavní autoři: Meliadò, Ettore F., van den Berg, Cornelis A.T., Luijten, Peter R., Raaijmakers, Alexander J.E.
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2019
Témata:
ISSN:0740-3194, 1522-2594, 1522-2594
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Purpose For ultrahigh field (UHF) MRI, the expected local specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution is usually calculated by numerical simulations using a limited number of generic body models and adding a safety margin to take into account intersubject variability. Assessment of this variability with a large model database would be desirable. In this study, a procedure to create such a database with accurate subject‐specific models is presented. Using 23 models, intersubject variability is investigated for prostate imaging at 7T with an 8‐channel fractionated dipole antenna array with 16 receive loops. Method From Dixon images of a volunteer acquired at 1.5T with a mockup array in place, an accurate dielectric model is built. Following this procedure, 23 subject‐specific models for local SAR assessment at 7T were created enabling an extensive analysis of the intersubject B1+ and peak local SAR variability. Results For the investigated setup, the maximum possible peak local SAR ranges from 2.6 to 4.6 W/kg for 8 × 1 W input power. The expected peak local SAR values represent a Gaussian distribution (μ/σ=2.29/0.29 W/kg) with realistic prostate‐shimmed phase settings and a gamma distribution Γ(24,0.09) with multidimensional radiofrequency pulses. Prostate‐shimmed phase settings are similar for all models. Using 1 generic phase setting, average B1+ reduction is 7%. Using only 1 model, the required safety margin for intersubject variability is 1.6 to 1.8. Conclusion The presented procedure allows for the creation of a customized model database. The results provide valuable insights into B1+ and local SAR variability. Recommended power thresholds per channel are 3.1 W with phase shimming on prostate or 2.6 W for multidimensional pulses.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0740-3194
1522-2594
1522-2594
DOI:10.1002/mrm.27518