Patrick M. Lehmann1, Mads Andersen2, Anina Seidemo1, Xiang Xu3,4, Xu Li4,5, Nirbhay Yadav4,5, Ronnie Wirestam1, Frederik Testud6, Patrick A. Liebig7, Pia C. Sundgren8,9, Peter C. M. van Zijl4,5, and Linda Knutsson1,4
1Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2Philips Healthcare, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3BioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States, 4Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States, 5F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States, 6Siemens Healthcare AB, Malmö, Sweden, 7Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany, 8Department of Radiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 9Lund University Bioimaging Centre, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
1Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2Philips Healthcare, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3BioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States, 4Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States, 5F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States, 6Siemens Healthcare AB, Malmö, Sweden, 7Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany, 8Department of Radiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 9Lund University Bioimaging Centre, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
A digital human head phantom can be used to
reproduce motion artefacts reported in in
vivo glucoCEST images and to analyse and validate motion correction
approaches with respect to the truth of the residual contrast.
Figure 2: Illustration of a glucoCEST
scan of a patient with a brain tumour under the influence of D-glucose
infusion, rigid-head motion and dynamic lateral ventricle dilatation and
contraction.
Figure 4: AUC (area under the curve) maps
depicting different intervals: Pre-infusion
(115 s), during infusion (245 s), and two post-infusion time intervals (45 s
before, 160 s after peak) showing signal rise and decay. Five cases showing ground
truth with D-glucose infusion and without motion (E), without infusion and with
motion (A, C), and with infusion and motion (B, D), before (A, B) and after (C,
D) retrospective motion correction.
