RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Effects of Acquisition Parameter Modifications and Field Strength on the Reproducibility of Brain Perfusion Measurements Using Arterial Spin-Labeling
JF American Journal of Neuroradiology
JO Am. J. Neuroradiol.
FD American Society of Neuroradiology
SP 109
OP 115
DO 10.3174/ajnr.A6856
VO 42
IS 1
A1 K.P.A. Baas
A1 J. Petr
A1 J.P.A. Kuijer
A1 A.J. Nederveen
A1 H.J.M.M. Mutsaerts
A1 K.C.C. van de Ven
YR 2021
UL http://www.ajnr.org/content/42/1/109.abstract
AB 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.ASLarterial spin-labelingCoVcoefficient of variationGraSEgradient spin-echopCASLpseudocontinuous arterial spin-labelingPLDpostlabeling delayPVCpartial volume correctionWBwhole-brainwsCVwithin-subject coefficient of variation