Comparison of global cerebral blood flow measured by phase-contrast mapping MRI with super(15)O-H sub(2)O positron emission tomography

• Published in: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2017-03, Vol.45 (3), p.692-699
• Main Authors: Vestergaard, Mark Bitsch, Lindberg, Ulrich, Aachmann-Andersen, Niels Jacob, Lisbjerg, Kristian, Christensen, Soeren Just, Rasmussen, Peter, Olsen, Niels Vidiendal, Law, Ian, Larsson, Henrik Bo Wiberg, Henriksen, Otto Moelby
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1053-1807; 1522-2586
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25442

Purpose To compare mean global cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by phase-contrast mapping magnetic resonance imaging (PCM MRI) and by super(15)O-H sub(2)O 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 super(15)O-H sub(2)O 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 sub(1)-weighted anatomical MR-scan. Results Mean CBF was 34.9 plus or minus 3.4mL/100g/min measured by super(15)O-H sub(2)O PET and 57.0 plus or minus 6.8mL/100g/min measured by PCM MRI. The measurements were highly correlated (P=0.0008, R super(2)=0.44), although values obtained by PCM MRI were higher compared to super(15)O-H sub(2)O PET (absolute and relative differences were 22.0 plus or minus 5.2mL/100g/min and 63.4 plus or minus 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 super(15)O-H sub(2)O PET, probably related to methodological bias. Level of Evidence: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017; 45:692-699.