4.7 Article

Comparison of Global Cerebral Blood Flow Measured by Phase-Contrast Mapping MRI with 15O-H2O Positron Emission Tomography

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 692-699

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25442

Keywords

cerebral blood flow; phase-contrast mapping; positron emission tomography

Funding

  1. Danish Council of Independent Research [10-094110]
  2. University of Copenhagen
  3. Lundbeck Foundation through the Center for Neurovascular Signaling (LUCENS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare mean global cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by phase-contrast mapping magnetic resonance imaging (PCM MRI) and by O-15-H2O positron emission tomography (PET) in healthy subjects. PCM MRI is increasingly being used to measure mean global CBF, but has not been validated in vivo against an accepted reference technique. Materials and Methods: Same-day measurements of CBF by O-15-H2O PET and subsequently by PCM MRI were performed on 22 healthy young male volunteers. Global CBF by PET was determined by applying a one-tissue compartment model with measurement of the arterial input function. Flow was measured in the internal carotid and vertebral arteries by a noncardiac triggered PCM MRI sequence at 3T. The measured flow was normalized to total brain weight determined from a volume-segmented 3D T-1-weighted anatomical MR-scan. Results: Mean CBF was 34.93.4mL/100g/min measured by O-15-H2O PET and 57.06.8mL/100g/min measured by PCM MRI. The measurements were highly correlated (P=0.0008, R-2=0.44), although values obtained by PCM MRI were higher compared to O-15-H2O PET (absolute and relative differences were 22.05.2mL/100g/min and 63.4 +/- 14.8%, respectively). Conclusion: This study confirms the use of PCM MRI for quantification of global CBF, but also that PCM MRI systematically yields higher values relative to O-15-H2O PET, probably related to methodological bias.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available