Dataset Information

Flexible and efficient optimization of quantitative sequences using automatic differentiation of Bloch simulations.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To investigate a computationally efficient method for optimizing the Cramér-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) of quantitative sequences without using approximations or an analytical expression of the signal.

Methods

Automatic differentiation was applied to Bloch simulations and used to optimize several quantitative sequences without the need for approximations or an analytical expression. The results were validated with in vivo measurements and comparisons to prior art. Multi-echo spin echo and DESPO T1 were used as benchmarks to verify the CRLB implementation. The CRLB of the Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) sequence, which has a complicated analytical formulation, was also optimized using automatic differentiation.

Results

The sequence parameters obtained for multi-echo spin echo and DESPO T1 matched results obtained using conventional methods. In vivo, MRF scans demonstrate that the CRLB optimization obtained with automatic differentiation can improve performance in presence of white noise. For MRF, the CRLB optimization converges in 1.1 CPU hours for NTR = 400 and has O(NTR) asymptotic runtime scaling for the calculation of the CRLB objective and gradient.

Conclusions

Automatic differentiation can be used to optimize the CRLB of quantitative sequences without using approximations or analytical expressions. For MRF, the runtime is computationally efficient and can be used to investigate confounding factors as well as MRF sequences with a greater number of repetitions.

SUBMITTER: Lee PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057531 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A recent publication indicated that the patient anatomical feature (PAF) model was capable of predicting optimal objectives based on past experience. In this study, the benefits of IMRT optimization using PAF-predicted objectives as guidance for prostate were evaluated. Three different optimization methods were compared.1) Expert Plan: Ten prostate cases (16 plans) were planned by an expert planner using conventional trial-and-error approach started with institutional modified OAR and PTV constraints. Optimization was stopped at 150 iterations and that plan was saved as Expert Plan. 2) Clinical Plan: The planner would keep working on the Expert Plan till he was satisfied with the dosimetric quality and the final plan was referred to as Clinical Plan. 3) PAF Plan: A third sets of plans for the same ten patients were generated fully automatically using predicted DVHs as guidance. The optimization was based on PAF-based predicted objectives, and was continued to 150 iterations without human interaction. DMAX and D98% for PTV, DMAX for femoral heads, DMAX, D10cc, D25%/D17%, and D40% for bladder/rectum were compared. Clinical Plans are further optimized with more iterations and adjustments, but in general provided limited dosimetric benefits over Expert Plans. PTV D98% agreed within 2.31% among Expert, Clinical, and PAF plans. Between Clinical and PAF Plans, differences for DMAX of PTV, bladder, and rectum were within 2.65%, 2.46%, and 2.20%, respectively. Bladder D10cc was higher for PAF but < 1.54% in general. Bladder D25% and D40% were lower for PAF, by up to 7.71% and 6.81%, respectively. Rectum D10cc, D17%, and D40% were 2.11%, 2.72%, and 0.27% lower for PAF, respectively. DMAX for femoral heads were comparable (< 35 Gy on average). Compared to Clinical Plan (Primary + Boost), the average optimization time for PAF plan was reduced by 5.2 min on average, with a maximum reduction of 7.1min. Total numbers of MUs per plan for PAF Plans were lower than Clinical Plans, indicating better delivery efficiency. The PAF-guided planning process is capable of generating clinical-quality prostate IMRT plans with no human intervention. Compared to manual optimization, this automatic optimization increases planning and delivery efficiency, while maintainingplan quality.