PURPOSE: To improve the robustness of arterial spin-labeled measured perfusion using a novel Cartesian acquisition with spiral profile reordering (CASPR) 3D turbo spin echo (TSE) in the brain and kidneys. METHODS: The CASPR view ordering followed a pseudo-spiral trajectory on a Cartesian grid, by sampling the center of k-space at the beginning of each echo train of a segmented 3D TSE acquisition. With institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 14 normal subjects (9 brain and 5 kidneys) were scanned with pCASL perfusion imaging using 3D CASPR and compared against 3D linear TSE (brain and kidneys), the established 2D EPI and 3D gradient and spin echo perfusion (brain), and 2D single-shot turbo spin-echo perfusion (kidneys). The SNR and the quantitative perfusion values were compared among different acquisitions. RESULTS: 3D CASPR TSE achieved robust perfusion across all slices compared to 3D linear TSE in the brain and kidneys. Compared to 2D EPI, 3D CASPR TSE showed higher SNR across the brain (P < 0.01), and exhibited good agreement (36.4 ± 4.7 and 36.9 ± 5.3 mL/100 g/min with 2D EPI and 3D CASPR, respectively), and with 3D gradient and spin echo (27.9 ± 7.2 mL/100 g/min). Compared to a single slice 2D single-shot turbo spin-echo acquisition, 3D CASPR TSE achieved robust perfusion across the entire kidneys in similar scan time with comparable quantified perfusion values (154.1 ± 74.6 and 151.7 ± 70.6 mL/100 g/min with 2D single-shot turbo spin-echo and 3D CASPR, respectively). CONCLUSION: The CASPR view ordering with 3D TSE achieves robust arterial spin-labeled perfusion in the brain and kidneys because of the sampling of the center of k-space at the beginning of each echo train.
PURPOSE: To improve the robustness of arterial spin-labeled measured perfusion using a novel Cartesian acquisition with spiral profile reordering (CASPR) 3D turbo spin echo (TSE) in the brain and kidneys. METHODS: The CASPR view ordering followed a pseudo-spiral trajectory on a Cartesian grid, by sampling the center of k-space at the beginning of each echo train of a segmented 3D TSE acquisition. With institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 14 normal subjects (9 brain and 5 kidneys) were scanned with pCASL perfusion imaging using 3D CASPR and compared against 3D linear TSE (brain and kidneys), the established 2D EPI and 3D gradient and spin echo perfusion (brain), and 2D single-shot turbo spin-echo perfusion (kidneys). The SNR and the quantitative perfusion values were compared among different acquisitions. RESULTS: 3D CASPR TSE achieved robust perfusion across all slices compared to 3D linear TSE in the brain and kidneys. Compared to 2D EPI, 3D CASPR TSE showed higher SNR across the brain (P < 0.01), and exhibited good agreement (36.4 ± 4.7 and 36.9 ± 5.3 mL/100 g/min with 2D EPI and 3D CASPR, respectively), and with 3D gradient and spin echo (27.9 ± 7.2 mL/100 g/min). Compared to a single slice 2D single-shot turbo spin-echo acquisition, 3D CASPR TSE achieved robust perfusion across the entire kidneys in similar scan time with comparable quantified perfusion values (154.1 ± 74.6 and 151.7 ± 70.6 mL/100 g/min with 2D single-shot turbo spin-echo and 3D CASPR, respectively). CONCLUSION: The CASPR view ordering with 3D TSE achieves robust arterial spin-labeled perfusion in the brain and kidneys because of the sampling of the center of k-space at the beginning of each echo train.
Authors: Ronald L Wolf; David C Alsop; Michael L McGarvey; Joseph A Maldjian; Jiongjiong Wang; John A Detre Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Markus Boland; Rüdiger Stirnberg; Eberhard D Pracht; Johanna Kramme; Roberto Viviani; Julia Stingl; Tony Stöcker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Philip M Robson; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Martin P Smith; Maryellen R M Sun; Weiying Dai; Neil M Rofsky; Ivan Pedrosa; David C Alsop Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: T Noguchi; T Yoshiura; A Hiwatashi; O Togao; K Yamashita; E Nagao; T Shono; M Mizoguchi; S Nagata; T Sasaki; S O Suzuki; T Iwaki; K Kobayashi; F Mihara; H Honda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-01-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Yurii Shepelytskyi; Vira Grynko; Madhwesha R Rao; Tao Li; Martina Agostino; Jim M Wild; Mitchell S Albert Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Luis Hernandez-Garcia; Verónica Aramendía-Vidaurreta; Divya S Bolar; Weiying Dai; Maria A Fernández-Seara; Jia Guo; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Henk Mutsaerts; Jan Petr; Qin Qin; Jonas Schollenberger; Yuriko Suzuki; Manuel Taso; David L Thomas; Matthias J P van Osch; Joseph Woods; Moss Y Zhao; Lirong Yan; Ze Wang; Li Zhao; Thomas W Okell Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Fabio Nery; Charlotte E Buchanan; Anita A Harteveld; Aghogho Odudu; Octavia Bane; Eleanor F Cox; Katja Derlin; H Michael Gach; Xavier Golay; Marcel Gutberlet; Christoffer Laustsen; Alexandra Ljimani; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Ivan Pedrosa; Pottumarthi V Prasad; Philip M Robson; Kanishka Sharma; Steven Sourbron; Manuel Taso; David L Thomas; Danny J J Wang; Jeff L Zhang; David C Alsop; Sean B Fain; Susan T Francis; María A Fernández-Seara Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 2.533