K P A Baas1, J Petr2,3, J P A Kuijer4, A J Nederveen5, H J M M Mutsaerts3,4,6, K C C van de Ven7. 1. From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (K.P.A.B., A.J.N.), Amsterdam University Medical Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands k.p.baas@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research (J.P.), Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering (J.P., H.J.M.M.M.), Institute Hall, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (J.P.A.K., H.J.M.M.M.), Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (K.P.A.B., A.J.N.), Amsterdam University Medical Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (H.J.M.M.M.), University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. 7. BIU MR (K.C.C.v.d.V.), Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although the added diagnostic value of arterial spin-labeling is shown in various cerebral pathologies, its use in clinical practice is limited. To encourage clinical adoption of ASL, we investigated the reproducibility of CBF measurements and the effects of variations in acquisition parameters compared to the recommended ASL implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four volunteers (mean age, 57.8 ± 17.0 years; range, 22-80 years) underwent two separate sessions (1.5T and 3T scanners from a single vendor) using a 15-channel head coil. Both sessions contained repeated 3D and 2D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling scans using vendor-recommended acquisition parameters (recommendation paper-based), followed by three 3D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling scans, two with postlabeling delays of 1600 and 2000 ms and one with increased spatial resolution. All scans were single postlabeling delay. Intrasession (identical acquisitions, scanned five minutes apart) and intersession (first 2D and 3D acquisitions of two sessions) reproducibility was examined as well as the effect of parameter variations on CBF. RESULTS: Intrasession CBF reproducibility was similar across image readouts and field strengths (within-subject coefficient of variation between 4.0% and 6.7%). Intersession within-subject coefficient of variation ranged from 6.6% to 14.8%. At 3T, the 3D acquisition with a higher spatial resolution resulted in less mixing of GM and WM signal, thus decreasing the bias in GM CBF between the 2D and 3D acquisitions (ΔCBF = 2.49 mL/100g/min [P < .001]). Postlabeling delay variations caused a modest bias (ΔCBF between -3.78 [P < .001] and 2.83 [P < .001] mL/100g/min). CONCLUSIONS: Arterial spin-labeling imaging is reproducible at both field strengths, and the reproducibility is not significantly correlated with age. Furthermore, 3T tolerates more acquisition parameter variations and allows more extensive optimizations so that 3D and 2D acquisitions can be compared.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although the added diagnostic value of arterial spin-labeling is shown in various cerebral pathologies, its use in clinical practice is limited. To encourage clinical adoption of ASL, we investigated the reproducibility of CBF measurements and the effects of variations in acquisition parameters compared to the recommended ASL implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four volunteers (mean age, 57.8 ± 17.0 years; range, 22-80 years) underwent two separate sessions (1.5T and 3T scanners from a single vendor) using a 15-channel head coil. Both sessions contained repeated 3D and 2D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling scans using vendor-recommended acquisition parameters (recommendation paper-based), followed by three 3D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling scans, two with postlabeling delays of 1600 and 2000 ms and one with increased spatial resolution. All scans were single postlabeling delay. Intrasession (identical acquisitions, scanned five minutes apart) and intersession (first 2D and 3D acquisitions of two sessions) reproducibility was examined as well as the effect of parameter variations on CBF. RESULTS: Intrasession CBF reproducibility was similar across image readouts and field strengths (within-subject coefficient of variation between 4.0% and 6.7%). Intersession within-subject coefficient of variation ranged from 6.6% to 14.8%. At 3T, the 3D acquisition with a higher spatial resolution resulted in less mixing of GM and WM signal, thus decreasing the bias in GM CBF between the 2D and 3D acquisitions (ΔCBF = 2.49 mL/100g/min [P < .001]). Postlabeling delay variations caused a modest bias (ΔCBF between -3.78 [P < .001] and 2.83 [P < .001] mL/100g/min). CONCLUSIONS: Arterial spin-labeling imaging is reproducible at both field strengths, and the reproducibility is not significantly correlated with age. Furthermore, 3T tolerates more acquisition parameter variations and allows more extensive optimizations so that 3D and 2D acquisitions can be compared.
Authors: Laura Biagi; Arturo Abbruzzese; Maria Cristina Bianchi; David C Alsop; Alberto Del Guerra; Michela Tosetti Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A D Robertson; G Matta; V S Basile; S E Black; C K Macgowan; J A Detre; B J MacIntosh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.825
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
Authors: Marta Vidorreta; Ze Wang; Ignacio Rodríguez; María A Pastor; John A Detre; María A Fernández-Seara Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: David C Alsop; John A Detre; Xavier Golay; Matthias Günther; Jeroen Hendrikse; Luis Hernandez-Garcia; Hanzhang Lu; Bradley J MacIntosh; Laura M Parkes; Marion Smits; Matthias J P van Osch; Danny J J Wang; Eric C Wong; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Henri J M M Mutsaerts; Jan Petr; Reinoud P H Bokkers; Ronald M Lazar; Randolph S Marshall; Iris Asllani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; María Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Patricia Figueiredo; Gilbert Hangel; Vera C Keil; Ruben E Nechifor; Frank Riemer; Kathleen M Schmainda; Esther A H Warnert; Evita C Wiegers; Thomas C Booth Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Jan Petr; Louise Hogeboom; Pavel Nikulin; Evita Wiegers; Gwen Schroyen; Jesper Kallehauge; Marek Chmelík; Patricia Clement; Ruben E Nechifor; Liviu-Andrei Fodor; Philip C De Witt Hamer; Frederik Barkhof; Cyril Pernet; Maarten Lequin; Sabine Deprez; Radim Jančálek; Henk J M M Mutsaerts; Francesca B Pizzini; Kyrre E Emblem; Vera C Keil Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 2.310