4.6 Article

Evaluation of Arterial Spin Labeling MRI-Comparison with 15O-Water PET on an Integrated PET/MR Scanner

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050821

关键词

O-15-water PET; ASL; CBF; PET/MR; validation

资金

  1. SciLife PET-MR grant
  2. Uppsala University Hospital
  3. Uppsala County

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the similarity between CBFASL and CBFPET, showing a high correlation but insufficient agreement in absolute CBF values for ASL to be used interchangeably with O-15-water PET.
Cerebral blood flow (CBF) measurements are of high clinical value and can be acquired non-invasively with no radiation exposure using pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (ASL). The aim of this study was to evaluate accordance in resting state CBF between ASL (CBFASL) and O-15-water positron emission tomography (PET) (CBFPET) acquired simultaneously on an integrated 3T PET/MR system. The data comprised ASL and dynamic O-15-water PET data with arterial blood sampling of eighteen subjects (eight patients with focal epilepsy and ten healthy controls, age 21 to 61 years). O-15-water PET parametric CBF images were generated using a basis function implementation of the single tissue compartment model. Cortical and subcortical regions were automatically segmented using Freesurfer. Average CBFASL and CBFPET in grey matter were 60 +/- 20 and 75 +/- 22 mL/100 g/min respectively, with a relatively high correlation (r = 0.78, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed poor agreement (bias = -15 mL/100 g/min, lower and upper limits of agreements = -16 and 45 mL/100 g/min, respectively) with a negative relationship. Accounting for the negative relationship, the width of the limits of agreement could be narrowed from 61 mL/100 g/min to 35 mL/100 g/min using regression-based limits of agreements. Although a high correlation between CBFASL and CBFPET was found, the agreement in absolute CBF values was not sufficient for ASL to be used interchangeably with O-15-water PET.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据