Abstract
PURPOSE: Relaxometry, specifically T (1) and T (2) mapping, has become an essential technique for assessing the properties of biological tissues related to various physiological and pathological conditions. Many techniques are being used to estimate T (1) and T (2) relaxation times, ranging from the traditional inversion or saturation recovery and spin-echo sequences to more advanced methods. Choosing the appropriate method for a specific application is critical since the precision and accuracy of T (1) and T (2) measurements are influenced by a variety of factors including the pulse sequence and its parameters, the inherent properties of the tissue being examined, the MRI hardware, and the image reconstruction. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the test-retest reproducibility of two advanced MRI relaxometry techniques (Driven Equilibrium Single Pulse Observation of T (1) and T (2), DESPOT, and 3D Quantification using an interleaved Look-Locker acquisition Sequence with a T (2) preparation pulse, QALAS), for T (1) and T (2) mapping in a healthy volunteer cohort. METHODS: 10 healthy volunteers underwent brain MRI at 1.3 mm(3) isotropic resolution, acquiring DESPOT and QALAS data (~11.8 and ~5 minutes duration, including field maps, respectively), test-retest with subject repositioning, on a 3.0 Tesla Philips Ingenia Elition scanner. To reconstruct the T (1) and T (2) maps, we used an equation-based algorithm for DESPOT and a dictionary-based algorithm that incorporates inversion efficiency and B (1) -field inhomogeneity for QALAS. The test-retest reproducibility was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CoV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Our results indicate that both the DESPOT and QALAS techniques demonstrate good levels of test-retest reproducibility for T (1) and T (2) mapping across the brain. Higher whole-brain voxel-to-voxel ICCs are observed in QALAS for T (1) (0.84 ± 0.039) and in DESPOT for T (2) (0.897 ± 0.029). The Bland-Altman plots show smaller bias and variability of T (1) estimates for QALAS (mean of -0.02 s, and upper and lower limits of -0.14 and 0.11 s, 95% CI) than for DESPOT (mean of -0.02 s, and limits of -0.31 and 0.27 s). QALAS also showed less variability (mean 1.08 ms, limits -1.88 to 4.04 ms) for T (2) compared to DESPOT (mean of 2.56 ms, and limits -17.29 to 22.41 ms). The within-subject CoVs for QALAS range from 0.6% (T (2) in CSF) to 5.8% (T (2) in GM), while for DESPOT they range from 2.1% (T (2) in CSF) to 6.7% (T (2) in GM). The between-subject CoVs for QALAS range from 2.5% (T (2) in GM) to 12% (T (2) in CSF), and for DESPOT they range from 3.7% (T (2) in WM) to 9.3% (T (2) in CSF). CONCLUSION: Overall, QALAS demonstrated better reproducibility for T (1) and T (2) measurements than DESPOT, in addition to reduced acquisition time.