Amirah Faisal Alsaedi1,2, David Lee Thomas3,4, Enrico De Vita5,6, Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths7,8, Sotirios Bisdas3,6, Xavier Golay3,6. 1. Department of Radiology Technology, Taibah University, Medina, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. afsaedi@taibahu.edu.sa. 2. Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. afsaedi@taibahu.edu.sa. 3. Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. 4. Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. 6. Lysholm Department of Neuroradiology, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK. 7. Nuffield Department of Medicine, The Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 8. The Queen's College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the repeatability of perfusion measures in gliomas using pulsed- and pseudo-continuous-arterial spin labelling (PASL, PCASL) techniques, and evaluate different regions-of-interest (ROIs) for relative tumour blood flow (rTBF) normalisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Repeatability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) was measured in the Contralateral Normal Appearing Hemisphere (CNAH) and in brain tumours (aTBF). rTBF was normalised using both large/small ROIs from the CNAH. Repeatability was evaluated with intra-class-correlation-coefficient (ICC), Within-Coefficient-of-Variation (WCoV) and Coefficient-of-Repeatability (CR). RESULTS: PASL and PCASL demonstrated high reliability (ICC > 0.9) for CNAH-CBF, aTBF and rTBF. PCASL demonstrated a more stable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with a lower WCoV of the SNR than that of PASL (10.9-42.5% vs. 12.3-29.2%). PASL and PCASL showed higher WCoV in aTBF and rTBF than in CNAH CBF in WM and GM but not in the caudate, and higher WCoV for rTBF than for aTBF when normalised using a small ROI (PASL 8.1% vs. 4.7%, PCASL 10.9% vs. 7.9%, respectively). The lowest CR was observed for rTBF normalised with a large ROI. DISCUSSION: PASL and PCASL showed similar repeatability for the assessment of perfusion parameters in patients with primary brain tumours as previous studies based on volunteers. Both methods displayed reasonable WCoV in the tumour area and CNAH. PCASL's more stable SNR in small areas (caudate) is likely to be due to the longer post-labelling delays.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the repeatability of perfusion measures in gliomas using pulsed- and pseudo-continuous-arterial spin labelling (PASL, PCASL) techniques, and evaluate different regions-of-interest (ROIs) for relative tumour blood flow (rTBF) normalisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Repeatability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) was measured in the Contralateral Normal Appearing Hemisphere (CNAH) and in brain tumours (aTBF). rTBF was normalised using both large/small ROIs from the CNAH. Repeatability was evaluated with intra-class-correlation-coefficient (ICC), Within-Coefficient-of-Variation (WCoV) and Coefficient-of-Repeatability (CR). RESULTS: PASL and PCASL demonstrated high reliability (ICC > 0.9) for CNAH-CBF, aTBF and rTBF. PCASL demonstrated a more stable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with a lower WCoV of the SNR than that of PASL (10.9-42.5% vs. 12.3-29.2%). PASL and PCASL showed higher WCoV in aTBF and rTBF than in CNAH CBF in WM and GM but not in the caudate, and higher WCoV for rTBF than for aTBF when normalised using a small ROI (PASL 8.1% vs. 4.7%, PCASL 10.9% vs. 7.9%, respectively). The lowest CR was observed for rTBF normalised with a large ROI. DISCUSSION: PASL and PCASL showed similar repeatability for the assessment of perfusion parameters in patients with primary brain tumours as previous studies based on volunteers. Both methods displayed reasonable WCoV in the tumour area and CNAH. PCASL's more stable SNR in small areas (caudate) is likely to be due to the longer post-labelling delays.
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
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: Marc Modat; Gerard R Ridgway; Zeike A Taylor; Manja Lehmann; Josephine Barnes; David J Hawkes; Nick C Fox; Sébastien Ourselin Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Melvin Mezue; Andrew R Segerdahl; Thomas W Okell; Michael A Chappell; Michael E Kelly; Irene Tracey Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Marc-André Weber; Christoph Thilmann; Matthias P Lichy; Matthias Günther; Stefan Delorme; Ivan Zuna; André Bongers; Lothar R Schad; Jürgen Debus; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Marco Essig; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Andrew Melbourne; Nicolas Toussaint; David Owen; Ivor Simpson; Thanasis Anthopoulos; Enrico De Vita; David Atkinson; Sebastien Ourselin Journal: Neuroinformatics Date: 2016-07