Reliability of 3D arterial spin labeling MR perfusion measurements: The effects of imaging parameters, scanner model, and field strength

The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) measurements obtained by 3D pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) imaging according to imaging parameters, scanner model, and field strength. We acquired 3D pCASL images in 12 healthy volunteers using fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical imaging 2018-11, Vol.52, p.23-27
Main Authors: Tanaka, Yoshihito, Inoue, Yusuke, Abe, Yutaka, Miyatake, Hiroki, Hata, Hirofumi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Arterial spin labeling
Blood flow
Cerebral blood flow
Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficients
Field strength
Image acquisition
Imaging parameter
Labeling
Mathematical models
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Parameters
Perfusion
Reliability
Reliability analysis
Scanner
Scanners
Spin labeling
Studies
Three dimensional models
Veins & arteries
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) measurements obtained by 3D pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) imaging according to imaging parameters, scanner model, and field strength. We acquired 3D pCASL images in 12 healthy volunteers using four different scanners: two 3.0 T scanners and two 1.5 T scanners. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient. Our results indicate that the influence of the post-labeling delay and scanner model on CBF measurements should be taken into consideration. If two scanners of the same model are used, scannerdependent differences may be small. •The spatial resolution did not substantially affect the global CBF value.•The post-labeling delay influenced the global CBF values.•Different scanners provided different CBF values even at the same field strength.•Different scanners of the same model may provide similar CBF measurements.
ISSN:0899-7071
1873-4499
DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.02.016