Literature DB >> 12218421

Absolute quantification of cerebral blood flow with magnetic resonance, reproducibility of the method, and comparison with H2(15)O positron emission tomography.

Timothy J Carroll1, Vincenzo Teneggi, Mathieu Jobin, Lisa Squassante, Valerie Treyer, Thomas F Hany, Cyrill Burger, Liqun Wang, Alan Bye, Gustav K Von Schulthess, Alfred Buck.   

Abstract

While H2(15)O positron emission tomography (PET) is still the gold standard in the quantitative assessment of cerebral perfusion (rCBF), its technical challenge, limited availability, and radiation exposure are disadvantages of the method. Recent work demonstrated the feasibility of magnetic resonance (MR) for quantitative cerebral perfusion imaging. There remain open questions, however, especially regarding reproducibility. The main purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of MR-derived flow values to those derived from H2(15)O PET. Positron emission tomography and MR perfusion imaging was performed in 20 healthy male volunteers, who were chronic smokers, on day 1 and day 3 of a 4-day hospitalization. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups, each with 10 subjects. One group was allowed to smoke as usual during the hospitalization, while the other group stopped smoking from day 2. Positron emission tomography and MR images were coregistered and rCBF was determined in two regions of interest, defined over gray matter (gm) and white matter (wm), yielding rCBF(PET)gm, rCBF(MR)gm, rCBF(PET)wm, and rCBF(MR)wm. Bland-Altman analysis was used to investigate reproducibility by assessing the difference rCBFday3 - rCBFday1 in eight continual-smoker volunteers. The analysis showed a good reproducibility for PET, but not for MR. Mean +/- SD of the difference rCBFday3 - rCBFday1 in gray matter was 6.35 +/- 21.06 and 0.49 +/- 5.27 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1) for MR and PET, respectively; the corresponding values in white matter were 2.60 +/- 15.64 and -1.14 +/- 4.16 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1). The Bland-Altman analysis was also used to assess MRI and PET agreement comparing rCBF measured on day 1. The analysis demonstrated a reasonably good agreement of MR and PET in white matter (rCBF(PET)wm - rCBF(MR)wm; -0.09 +/- 7.23 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1)), while in gray matter a reasonable agreement was only achieved after removing vascular artifacts in the MR perfusion maps (rCBF(PET)gm - rCBF(MR)gm; -11.73 +/- 14.52 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1)). In line with prior work, these results demonstrate that reproducibility was overall considerably better for PET than for MR. Until reproducibility is improved and vascular artifacts are efficiently removed, MR is not suitable for reliable quantitative perfusion measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12218421     DOI: 10.1097/00004647-200209000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab        ISSN: 0271-678X            Impact factor:   6.200


  34 in total

1.  First results in an MR imaging--compatible canine model of acute stroke.

Authors:  A Shaibani; S Khawar; W Shin; T A Cashen; B Schirf; M Rohany; S Kakodkar; T J Carroll
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Human brain: reliability and reproducibility of pulsed arterial spin-labeling perfusion MR imaging.

Authors:  Geon-Ho Jahng; Enmin Song; Xiao-Ping Zhu; Gerald B Matson; Michael W Weiner; Norbert Schuff
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  A look ahead: PET/MR versus PET/CT.

Authors:  Gustav K von Schulthess; Heinz-Peter W Schlemmer
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Regional cerebral blood flow using quantitative MR angiography.

Authors:  M Zhao; S Amin-Hanjani; S Ruland; A P Curcio; L Ostergren; F T Charbel
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Volumetric cerebral perfusion imaging in healthy adults: regional distribution, laterality, and repeatability of pulsed continuous arterial spin labeling (PCASL).

Authors:  Adolf Pfefferbaum; Sandra Chanraud; Anne-Lise Pitel; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; David C Alsop; Torsten Rohlfing; Edith V Sullivan
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 3.222

Review 6.  Comparison of cerebral blood flow measurement with [15O]-water positron emission tomography and arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review.

Authors:  Audrey P Fan; Hesamoddin Jahanian; Samantha J Holdsworth; Greg Zaharchuk
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 6.200

7.  Arterial transit time effects in pulsed arterial spin labeling CBF mapping: insight from a PET and MR study in normal human subjects.

Authors:  Maolin Qiu; R Paul Maguire; Jagriti Arora; Beata Planeta-Wilson; David Weinzimmer; Jinghua Wang; Yuenan Wang; Hyeonjin Kim; Nallakkandi Rajeevan; Yiyun Huang; Richard E Carson; R Todd Constable
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  Reliability and precision of pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI on 3.0 T and comparison with 15O-water PET in elderly subjects at risk for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Guofan Xu; Howard A Rowley; Gaohong Wu; David C Alsop; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; Maritza Dowling; Bradley T Christian; Terrence R Oakes; Sterling C Johnson
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.044

9.  Imaging Biomarkers for Intra-arterial Stroke Therapy.

Authors:  Olvert A Berkhemer; Shervin Kamalian; R Gilberto González; Charles B L M Majoie; Albert J Yoo
Journal:  Cardiovasc Eng Technol       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 2.495

10.  Usefulness of pulsed arterial spin labeling MR imaging in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.

Authors:  Young-Min Lim; Yong-Won Cho; Sadat Shamim; Jeffrey Solomon; Rasmus Birn; Wen Ming Luh; William D Gaillard; Eva K Ritzl; William H Theodore
Journal:  Epilepsy Res       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.045

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.