Improving in situ acoustic intensity estimates using MR acoustic radiation force imaging in combination with multifrequency MR elastography
Corresponding Author
Ningrui Li
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Correspondence
Ningrui Li, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Lucas MRI Center, MC 5488, 1201 Welch Rd., Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorPooja Gaur
Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKristin Quah
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKim Butts Pauly
Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ningrui Li
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Correspondence
Ningrui Li, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Lucas MRI Center, MC 5488, 1201 Welch Rd., Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorPooja Gaur
Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKristin Quah
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKim Butts Pauly
Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorClick here for author-reader discussions
Abstract
Purpose
Magnetic resonance acoustic radiation force imaging (MR-ARFI) enables focal spot localization during nonablative transcranial ultrasound therapies. As the acoustic radiation force is proportional to the applied acoustic intensity, measured MR-ARFI displacements could potentially be used to estimate the acoustic intensity at the target. However, variable brain stiffness is an obstacle. The goal of this study was to develop and assess a method to accurately estimate the acoustic intensity at the focus using MR-ARFI displacements in combination with viscoelastic properties obtained with multifrequency MR elastography (MRE).
Methods
Phantoms with a range of viscoelastic properties were fabricated, and MR-ARFI displacements were acquired within each phantom using multiple acoustic intensities. Voigt model parameters were estimated for each phantom based on storage and loss moduli measured using multifrequency MRE, and these were used to predict the relationship between acoustic intensity and measured displacement.
Results
Using assumed viscoelastic properties, MR-ARFI displacements alone could not accurately estimate acoustic intensity across phantoms. For example, acoustic intensities were underestimated in phantoms stiffer than the assumed stiffness and overestimated in phantoms softer than the assumed stiffness. This error was greatly reduced using individualized viscoelasticity measurements obtained from MRE.
Conclusion
We demonstrated that viscoelasticity information from MRE could be used in combination with MR-ARFI displacements to obtain more accurate estimates of acoustic intensity. Additionally, Voigt model viscosity parameters were found to be predictive of the relaxation rate of each phantom's time-varying displacement response, which could be used to optimize patient-specific MR-ARFI pulse sequences.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| mrm29309-sup-0001-SupInfo.docxWord 2007 document , 400.5 KB |
Figure S1 Experimental setup for MR acoustic radiation force imaging (MR-ARFI) acquisitions. The transducer membrane was filled with degassed, deionized water, and additional water was added on top of the phantom to ensure robust acoustic coupling. The transducer was placed on top of the phantom and aligned with the direction of applied motion-encoding gradients (MEGs) using a bubble level. Figure S2 Experimental setup for characterizing the acoustic properties of each phantom. Immediately following MRI, the phantom was placed in a tank of degassed, deionized water. A planar transducer and hydrophone were placed on opposite ends of the phantom, approximately 1 cm away from the phantom surface. Waveform measurements were made with and without the phantom in the acoustic path. Figure S3 Example storage (A–D) and loss modulus (E–H) maps for the phantom fabricated with 20% castor oil at varying actuation frequencies of 40, 60, 70, and 80 Hz. The center slice is shown for all phantoms. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Vyas U, Ghanouni P, Halpern CH, Elias J, Pauly KB. Predicting variation in subject thermal response during transcranial magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound surgery: comparison in seventeen subject datasets. Med Phys. 2016; 43: 5170-5180.
- 2Rieke V, Butts PK. MR thermometry. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 27: 376-390.
- 3Boutet A, Ranjan M, Zhong J, et al. Focused ultrasound thalamotomy location determines clinical benefits in patients with essential tremor. Brain. 2018; 141: 3405–14.
- 4Dallapiazza RF, Timbie KF, Holmberg S, et al. Noninvasive neuromodulation and thalamic mapping with low-intensity focused ultrasound. J Neurosurg. 2018; 128: 875–84.
- 5Constans C, Mateo P, Tanter M, Aubry JF. Potential impact of thermal effects during ultrasonic neurostimulation: retrospective numerical estimation of temperature elevation in seven rodent setups. Phys Med Biol. 2018; 63:025003.
- 6Hynynen K, McDannold N, Vykhodtseva N, Jolesz FA. Noninvasive MR imaging–guided focal opening of the blood-brain barrier in rabbits. Radiology. 2001; 220:(3): 640-646.
- 7Aryal M, Arvanitis CD, Alexander PM, McDannold N. Ultrasound-mediated blood-brain barrier disruption for targeted drug delivery in the central nervous system. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014; 72: 94-109.
- 8Wang JB, Di Ianni T, Vyas DB, et al. Focused ultrasound for noninvasive, focal pharmacologic neurointervention. Front Neurosci. 2020; 14: 675.
- 9Tung Y-S, Vlachos F, Choi JJ, Deffieux T, Selert K, Konofagou EE. In vivo transcranial cavitation threshold detection during ultrasound-induced blood–brain barrier opening in mice. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55: 6141-6155.
- 10Baseri B, Choi JJ, Tung Y-S, Konofagou EE. Multi-modality safety assessment of blood-brain barrier opening using focused ultrasound and definity microbubbles: a short-term study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010; 36: 1445-1459.
- 11Meng Y, Pople CB, Lea-Banks H, et al. Safety and efficacy of focused ultrasound induced blood-brain barrier opening, an integrative review of animal and human studies. J Control Release. 2019; 309: 25–36.
- 12Li N, Pascal A, Lechtenberg KJ, et al. Histologic evaluation of activation of acute inflammatory response in a mouse model following ultrasound-mediated blood-brain barrier using different acoustic pressures and microbubble doses. Nanotheranostics. 2020; 4: 210-223.
- 13Ye PP, Brown JR, Pauly KB. Frequency dependence of ultrasound neurostimulation in the mouse brain. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016; 42: 1512-1530.
- 14Tufail Y, Matyushov A, Baldwin N, et al. Transcranial pulsed ultrasound stimulates intact brain circuits. Neuron. 2010; 66: 681–94.
- 15Kim H, Kim S, Sim NS, et al. Miniature ultrasound ring array transducers for transcranial ultrasound neuromodulation of freely-moving small animals. Brain Stimul. 2019; 12: 251–5.
- 16Kim H, Chiu A, Lee SD, Fischer K, Yoo SS. Focused ultrasound-mediated non-invasive brain stimulation: examination of sonication parameters. Brain Stimul. 2014; 7: 748-756.
- 17Wang JB, Aryal M, Zhong Q, Vyas DB, Airan RD. Noninvasive ultrasonic drug uncaging maps whole-brain functional networks. Neuron. 2018; 100: 728-38.e7.
- 18Ter HG. Ultrasound bioeffects and safety. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med. 2010; 224: 363-373.
- 19McDannold N, Maier SE. Magnetic resonance acoustic radiation force imaging. Med Phys. 2008; 35: 3748-3758.
- 20Radicke M, Engelbertz A, Habenstein B, et al. New image contrast method in magnetic resonance imaging via ultrasound. Hyperfine Interact. 2008; 181: 21–6.
- 21Kaye EA, Chen J, Pauly KB. Rapid MR-ARFI method for focal spot localization during focused ultrasound therapy. Magn Reson Med. 2011; 65: 738-743.
- 22Chen J, Watkins R, Pauly KB. Optimization of encoding gradients for MR-ARFI. Magn Reson Med. 2010; 63: 1050-1058.
- 23Kaye EA, Pauly KB. Adapting MRI acoustic radiation force imaging for in vivo human brain focused ultrasound applications. Magn Reson Med. 2013; 69: 724-733.
- 24Ilovitsh A, Fite BZ, Ilovitsh T, Ferrara KW. Acoustic radiation force imaging using a single-shot spiral readout. Phys Med Biol. 2019; 64:125004.
- 25Odéen H, de Bever J, Hofstetter LW, Parker DL. Multiple-point magnetic resonance acoustic radiation force imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2019; 81: 1104-1117.
- 26Paquin R, Vignaud A, Marsac L, et al. Keyhole acceleration for magnetic resonance acoustic radiation force imaging (MR ARFI). Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 31: 1695-1703.
- 27Gaur P, Casey KM, Kubanek J, et al. Histologic safety of transcranial focused ultrasound neuromodulation and magnetic resonance acoustic radiation force imaging in rhesus macaques and sheep. Brain Stimul. 2020; 13: 804–14.
- 28Li Y, Lee J, Long X, et al. A magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound neuromodulation system with a whole brain coil array for nonhuman primates at 3 T. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020; 39: 4401-4412.
- 29Magnin R, Rabusseau F, Salabartan F, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided motorized transcranial ultrasound system for blood-brain barrier permeabilization along arbitrary trajectories in rodents. J Ther Ultrasound. 2015; 3: 22.
- 30Gerstenmayer M, Rémi M, Fellah B, Denis LB, Larrat B. Magnetic resonance acoustic radiation force imaging for in vivo estimation of ultrasonic transmission factor through rat skulls. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Therapeutic Ultrasound, Tel Aviv, Israel, 2016. p. 374–5.
- 31Nightingale K, Soo MS, Nightingale R, Trahey G. Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: in vivo demonstration of clinical feasibility. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002; 28: 227-235.
- 32Weickenmeier J, de Rooij R, Budday S, Steinmann P, Ovaert TC, Kuhl E. Brain stiffness increases with myelin content. Acta Biomater. 2016; 42: 265-272.
- 33Vappou J, Bour P, Marquet F, Ozenne V, Quesson B. MR-ARFI-based method for the quantitative measurement of tissue elasticity: application for monitoring HIFU therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2018; 63:095018.
- 34Budday S, Sommer G, Birkl C, et al. Mechanical characterization of human brain tissue. Acta Biomater. 2017; 48: 319–40.
- 35Selzo MR, Gallippi CM. Viscoelastic response (VisR) imaging for assessment of viscoelasticity in voigt materials. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2013; 60: 2488-2500.
- 36Muthupillai R, Lomas DJ, Rossman PJ, Greenleaf JF, Manduca A, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science. 1995; 269: 1854-1857.
- 37Fovargue D, Nordsletten D, Sinkus R. Stiffness reconstruction methods for MR elastography. NMR Biomed. 2018; 31:e3935.
- 38Sack I, Beierbach B, Wuerfel J, et al. The impact of aging and gender on brain viscoelasticity. Neuroimage. 2009; 46: 652–7.
- 39Arani A, Murphy MC, Glaser KJ, et al. Measuring the effects of aging and sex on regional brain stiffness with MR elastography in healthy older adults. Neuroimage. 2015; 111: 59–64.
- 40Pepin KM, McGee KP, Arani A, et al. MR elastography analysis of glioma stiffness and IDH1-mutation status. Am J Neuroradiol. 2018; 39: 31-36.
- 41Bunevicius A, Schregel K, Sinkus R, Golby A, Patz S. REVIEW: MR elastography of brain tumors. NeuroImage Clin. 2020; 25:102109.
- 42Murphy MC, Jones DT, Jack CR, et al. Regional brain stiffness changes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum. NeuroImage Clin. 2016; 10: 283-290.
- 43Murphy MC, Huston J, Jack CR, et al. Decreased brain stiffness in Alzheimer's disease determined by magnetic resonance elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011; 34: 494-498.
- 44Farrer AI, Odéen H, de Bever J, et al. Characterization and evaluation of tissue-mimicking gelatin phantoms for use with MRgFUS. J Ther Ultrasound. 2015; 3: 9.
- 45Zhu Y, Dong C, Yin Y, et al. The role of viscosity estimation for oil-in-gelatin phantom in shear wave based ultrasound elastography. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015; 41: 601–9.
- 46Murphy MC, Huston J, Jack CR, et al. Measuring the characteristic topography of brain stiffness with magnetic resonance elastography. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e81668
- 47Fung Y-C. Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues. 2nd ed. Springer; 1993.
10.1007/978-1-4757-2257-4 Google Scholar
- 48Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML, Nightingale RW, Trahey GE. On the feasibility of remote palpation using acoustic radiation force. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 110: 625-634.
- 49Bitton RR, Kaye E, Dirbas FM, Daniel BL, Pauly KB. Toward MR-guided high intensity focused ultrasound for presurgical localization: focused ultrasound lesions in cadaveric breast tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 35: 1089-1097.
- 50Huang Y, Curiel L, Kukic A, Plewes DB, Chopra R, Hynynen K. MR acoustic radiation force imaging: in vivo comparison to ultrasound motion tracking. Med Phys. 2009; 36: 2016-2020.
- 51Dadakova T, Özen AC, Krafft AJ et al. MR-ARFI for the quantification of tissue elastic properties. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Toronto, Canada, 2015. Abstract number 4041
- 52Hofstetter LW, Odéen H, Bolster BD, et al. Efficient shear wave elastography using transient acoustic radiation force excitations and MR displacement encoding. Magn Reson Med. 2019; 81: 3153-3167.
- 53Hofstetter LW, Odeen H, Bolster BD, Christensen D, Payne A, Parker DL. Magnetic resonance shear wave elastography using transient acoustic radiation force excitations and sinusoidal displacement encoding. Phys Med Biol. 2020; 66:055027.
- 54Wu T, Felmlee JP, Greenleaf JF, Riederer SJ, Ehman RL. MR imaging of shear waves generated by focused ultrasound. Magn Reson Med. 2000; 43: 111-115.
10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(200001)43:1<111::AID-MRM13>3.0.CO;2-D CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 55Viola F, Walker WF. Radiation force imaging of viscoelastic properties with reduced artifacts. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2003; 50: 736-742.
- 56Phipps MA, Jonathan S, Yang P-F, Chen LM, Grissom W, Caskey CF. Increasing radiation force-induced displacement at matched pressure by reducing effective aperture. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium [Virtual], 2020, pp. 1–4.
- 57Hossain MM, Gallippi CM. Viscoelastic response ultrasound derived relative elasticity and relative viscosity reflect true elasticity and viscosity: in silico and experimental demonstration. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2020; 67: 1102-1117.
- 58Kremkau FW, Barnes RW, McGraw CP. Ultrasonic attenuation and propagation speed in normal human brain. J Acoust Soc Am. 1981; 70: 29-38.
