% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Straub:181419,
      author       = {S. Straub$^*$ and J. Emmerich$^*$ and H.-P. Schlemmer$^*$
                      and K. H. Maier-Hein$^*$ and M. E. Ladd$^*$ and M.
                      Röthke$^*$ and D. Bonekamp$^*$ and F. Laun$^*$},
      title        = {{M}ask-{A}dapted {B}ackground {F}ield {R}emoval for
                      {A}rtifact {R}eduction in {Q}uantitative {S}usceptibility
                      {M}apping of the {P}rostate.},
      journal      = {Tomography},
      volume       = {3},
      number       = {2},
      issn         = {2379-1381},
      address      = {Ann Arbor, Michigan},
      publisher    = {Grapho Publications},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2022-01987},
      pages        = {96 - 100},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {We propose an alternative processing method for
                      quantitative susceptibility mapping of the prostate that
                      reduces artifacts and enables better visibility and
                      quantification of calcifications and other lesions.
                      Three-dimensional gradient-echo magnetic resonance data were
                      obtained from 26 patients at 3 T who previously received a
                      planning computed tomography of the prostate. Phase images
                      were unwrapped using Laplacian-based phase unwrapping. The
                      background field was removed with the V-SHARP method using
                      tissue masks for the entire abdomen (Method 1) and masks
                      that excluded bone and the rectum (Method 2). Susceptibility
                      maps were calculated with the iLSQR method. The quality of
                      susceptibility maps was assessed by one radiologist and two
                      physicists who rated the data for visibility of lesions and
                      data quality on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (good). The
                      readers rated susceptibility maps computed with Method 2 to
                      be, on average, better for visibility of lesions with a
                      score of 2.9 ± 1.1 and image quality with a score of 2.8 ±
                      0.8 compared with maps computed with Method 1 (2.4 ±
                      1.2/2.3 ± 1.0). Regarding strong artifacts, these could be
                      removed using adapted masks, and the susceptibility values
                      seemed less biased by the artifacts. Thus, using an adapted
                      mask for background field removal when calculating
                      susceptibility maps of the prostate from phase data reduces
                      artifacts and improves visibility of lesions.},
      keywords     = {artifact reduction (Other) / background field removal
                      (Other) / calcification (Other) / prostate cancer (Other) /
                      quantitative susceptibility mapping (Other)},
      cin          = {E020 / E010 / E132 / E230},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)E132-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E230-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:30042974},
      pmc          = {pmc:PMC6024456},
      doi          = {10.18383/j.tom.2017.00005},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/181419},
}