Effects of Acquisition Parameter Modifications and Field Strength on the Reproducibility of Brain Perfusion Measurements Using Arterial Spin-Labeling.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Brain
/ blood supply
Cerebrovascular Circulation
Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy
/ methods
Female
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Neuroimaging
/ methods
Perfusion Imaging
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Spin Labels
Young Adult
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
23
04
2020
accepted:
17
08
2020
pubmed:
14
11
2020
medline:
23
3
2021
entrez:
13
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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 [ 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.
Sections du résumé
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 [
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33184068
pii: ajnr.A6856
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6856
pmc: PMC7814799
doi:
Substances chimiques
Spin Labels
0
Types de publication
Clinical Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
109-115Informations de copyright
© 2021 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Apr;25(4):696-702
pubmed: 17279531
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 26;15(2):e0229444
pubmed: 32101567
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2001 Apr;21(4):440-55
pubmed: 11323530
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2019 Jan;39(1):173-181
pubmed: 29869933
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Feb;39(2):402-9
pubmed: 23723043
Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 1;66:662-71
pubmed: 23142069
Psychiatry Res. 2010 Jun 30;182(3):266-73
pubmed: 20488671
Magn Reson Med. 2000 Jul;44(1):92-100
pubmed: 10893526
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Aug;38(8):1555-1561
pubmed: 28619834
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Jan;73(1):102-16
pubmed: 24715426
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Apr;39(4):931-9
pubmed: 24038544
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Aug;54(2):491-8
pubmed: 16032686
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 May;35(5):1026-37
pubmed: 22246782
Transl Stroke Res. 2012 Jun;3(2):228-35
pubmed: 24323778
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2011 Aug;31(8):1706-15
pubmed: 21304555
Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 1;219:117031
pubmed: 32526385
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Jun;77(6):2296-2302
pubmed: 27436420
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2012 May;22(2):259-69, x-xi
pubmed: 22548931
Magn Reson Med. 1992 Jan;23(1):37-45
pubmed: 1734182
Neuroimage. 2014 May 15;92:182-92
pubmed: 24531046
Neuroimage. 2015 Jun;113:143-52
pubmed: 25818685
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Feb;55(2):219-32
pubmed: 16416430
Magn Reson Med. 2013 May;69(5):1466-75
pubmed: 22711674
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Apr;33(4):940-9
pubmed: 21448961
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017 Sep;37(9):3184-3192
pubmed: 28058975
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 04;9(8):e104108
pubmed: 25090654
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 May;41(5):1165-80
pubmed: 25236477
MAGMA. 2018 Dec;31(6):725-734
pubmed: 29916058
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Aug;54(2):366-72
pubmed: 16032674
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014 Dec;34(12):1919-27
pubmed: 25269517
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Dec;60(6):1362-71
pubmed: 18828149