Accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of myocardial T1 mapping: A comparison of four T1 estimation algorithms for modified look-locker inversion recovery (MOLLI).
Accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of myocardial T1 mapping: A comparison of four T1 estimation algorithms for modified look-locker inversion recovery (MOLLI).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/mrm.26565
复制
发表时间：
2017-11
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Hu P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shao J;Liu D;Sung K;Nguyen KL;Hu P
比较四种不同的MOLLI T1估计算法的准确度和精度。研究了原始拟合、逆群拟合、瞬时信号丢失模拟和带切片轮廓校正的布洛赫方程模拟四种T1估计算法。在模拟、体模和志愿者研究中比较了T1估计的准确性、精密度、再现性和对心率（HR）、翻转角（FA）和采集方案（AcS）变化的灵敏度。IG（−2.4%±3.9%）和原始拟合（−3.2%±1.4%）的T1估计准确度低于BLESSPC（0.2%±1.5%）和InSiL（−0.7%±2.1%）。对于相同FA，原始拟合在409 ms-1884 ms的T1范围内具有最佳精度（0.67%±0.16% vs.使用IG的0.90%±0.23%，使用InSiL的0.78%±0.11%，使用BLESSPC的0.77%±0.12%）。BLESSPC在不同FA和AcS下产生的体内T1值最一致，当FA=35°时，四种方法之间的T1估计重复性相似（p>0.3）。当使用FA=50°时，仅使用BLESSPC时再现性显著提高（1.6%±0.9 vs. 2.6%± 1.9%，p<0.05）。BLESSPC具有上级准确性，对FA、HR和AcS变化的敏感性最低。采用BLESSPC和FA=50°的T1估计在准确度和精度上上级FA=35°的传统MOLLI。在不同的病理条件下，进一步的临床研究是必要的，以证实我们的研究结果。
To compare the accuracy and precision of four different T1 estimation algorithms for MOLLI. Four T1 estimation algorithms, including the original fit, Inversion group(IG) fit, Instantaneous signal loss simulation(InSiL) and Bloch equation simulation with slice profile correction(BLESSPC) were studied. T1 estimation accuracy, precision, reproducibility and sensitivity to heart rate(HR), flip angle(FA) and acquisition scheme(AcS) variations were compared in simulation, phantom, and volunteer studies. T1 estimation accuracy of IG (−2.4%±3.9%) and original fit (−3.2%±1.4%) were worse than BLESSPC (0.2%±1.5%) and InSiL (−0.7%±2.1%). The original fit had the best precision for T1 from 409ms-1884ms for the same FA (0.67%±0.16% vs. 0.90%±0.23% using IG, 0.78%±0.11% using InSiL, 0.77%±0.12% using BLESSPC). BLESSPC generated the most consistent in vivo T1 values over different FAs and AcS, and the T1 estimation reproducibility was similar (p>0.3) among the four methods when FA=35°. When using FA=50°, the reproducibility was significantly improved only when using BLESSPC (1.6%±0.9 vs. 2.6%±1.9%, p<0.05). BLESSPC has superior accuracy and is the least sensitive to FA, HR, and AcS variations. T1 estimation using BLESSPC and FA=50° is superior to conventional MOLLI with FA=35° in accuracy and precision. Further clinical studies in varying pathological conditions are warranted to confirm our findings.