4.4 Article

Absolute quantification of cerebral blood flow: correlation between dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI and model-free arterial spin labeling

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 1-7

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2009.06.006

Keywords

Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI; Arterial spin labeling; Cerebral blood flow; Perfusion

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [13514, 2005-6910, 2007-3974, 2007-6079]
  2. Crafoord foundation
  3. Lund University Hospital
  4. Swedish Cancer Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare absolute cerebral blood flow (CBF) estimates obtained by model-free arterial spin labeling (ASL) and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC-MRI), corrected for partial volume effects (PVEs). Methods: CBF was measured using DSC-MRI and model-free ASL (quantitative signal targeting with alternating radiofrequency labeling of arterial regions) at 3 T in 15 subjects with brain tumor, and the two modalities were compared with regard to CBF estimates in normal gray matter (GM) and DSC-to-ASL CBF ratios in selected tumor regions. The DSC-MRI CBF maps were calculated using a global arterial input function (AIF) from the sylvian-fissure region, but, in order to minimize PVEs, the AIF time integral was rescaled by a venous output function time integral obtained from the sagittal sinus. Results: In GM, the average DSC-MRI CBF estimate was 150+/-45 ml/(min 100 g) (mean+/-SD) while the corresponding ASL CBF was 44+/-10 ml/(min 100 g). The linear correlation between GM CBF estimates obtained by DSC-MRI and ASL was r=.89, and observed DSC-to-ASL CBF ratios differed by less than 3% between GM and tumor regions. Conclusions: A satisfactory positive linear correlation between the CBF estimates obtained by model-free ASL and DSC-MRI was observed, and DSC-to-ASL CBF ratios showed no obvious tissue dependence. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available