Purpose: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) measures stiffness of soft tissues by analyzing their spatial harmonic response to externally induced shear vibrations. Many MRE methods use inversion-based reconstruction approaches, which invoke first- or second-order derivatives by finite difference operators (first- and second-FDOs) and thus give rise to a biased frequency dispersion of stiffness estimates.
Methods: We here demonstrate analytically, numerically, and experimentally that FDO-based stiffness estimates are affected by (1) noise-related underestimation of values in the range of high spatial wave support, that is, at lower vibration frequencies, and (2) overestimation of values due to wave discretization at low spatial support, that is, at higher vibration frequencies.
Results: Our results further demonstrate that second-FDOs are more susceptible to noise than first-FDOs and that FDO dispersion depends both on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and on a lumped parameter A, which is defined as wavelength over pixel size and over a number of pixels per stencil of the FDO. Analytical FDO dispersion functions are derived for optimizing A parameters at a given SNR. As a simple rule of thumb, we show that FDO artifacts are minimized when A/2 is in the range of the square root of 2SNR for the first-FDO or cubic root of 5SNR for the second-FDO.
Conclusions: Taken together, the results of our study provide an analytical solution to a long-standing, well-recognized, yet unsolved problem in MRE postprocessing and might thus contribute to the ongoing quest for minimizing inversion artifacts in MRE.
Keywords: Helmholtz equation; MRE; direct inversion; finite difference operators; multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography; shear wave speed dispersion; wave phase gradient.
© 2020 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Multifrequency inversion in magnetic resonance elastography.Phys Med Biol. 2012 Apr 21;57(8):2329-46. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/8/2329. Epub 2012 Mar 30. Phys Med Biol. 2012. PMID: 22460134
Algebraic Helmholtz inversion in planar magnetic resonance elastography.Phys Med Biol. 2008 Jun 21;53(12):3147-58. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/12/005. Epub 2008 May 21. Phys Med Biol. 2008. PMID: 18495979
Waveguide effects and implications for cardiac magnetic resonance elastography: A finite element study.NMR Biomed. 2018 Aug 13:e3996. doi: 10.1002/nbm.3996. Online ahead of print. NMR Biomed. 2018. PMID: 30101999 Free PMC article.
Heterogeneous Multifrequency Direct Inversion (HMDI) for magnetic resonance elastography with application to a clinical brain exam.Med Image Anal. 2018 May;46:180-188. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2018.03.003. Epub 2018 Mar 17. Med Image Anal. 2018. PMID: 29574398
Stiffness reconstruction methods for MR elastography.NMR Biomed. 2018 Oct;31(10):e3935. doi: 10.1002/nbm.3935. Epub 2018 May 18. NMR Biomed. 2018. PMID: 29774974 Free PMC article. Review.
- Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: Technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:544-555.
- Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Glockner JF, et al. MR elastography of liver tumors: Preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1534-1540.
- Garteiser P, Doblas S, Daire JL, et al. MR elastography of liver tumours: Value of viscoelastic properties for tumour characterisation. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2169-2177.
- Shahryari M, Tzschatzsch H, Guo J, et al. Tomoelastography distinguishes noninvasively between Benign and Malignant liver lesions. Cancer Res. 2019;79:5704-5710.
- Marticorena Garcia SR, Grossmann M, Bruns A, et al. Tomoelastography paired with T2* magnetic resonance imaging detects lupus nephritis with normal renal function. Invest Radiol. 2019;54:89-97.