Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Neuroimage. 2015 Jun;113:143-52. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.043. Epub 2015 Mar 24.

Multi-vendor reliability of arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI using a near-identical sequence: implications for multi-center studies.

Author information

1
Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: henkjanmutsaerts@gmail.com.
2
C.J. Gorter Center for High Field MRI, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK.
4
Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA.
5
The Intervention Center, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
6
Division of Neuroscience, Center for Applied Medical Research (CIMA), University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
7
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
8
Division of Neuroradiology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
9
Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, UK.
10
Fraunhofer MEVIS, Bremen, Germany; MR Physics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
11
Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
12
The Intervention Center, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
13
Department of Psychology, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

A main obstacle that impedes standardized clinical and research applications of arterial spin labeling (ASL), is the substantial differences between the commercial implementations of ASL from major MRI vendors. In this study, we compare a single identical 2D gradient-echo EPI pseudo-continuous ASL (PCASL) sequence implemented on 3T scanners from three vendors (General Electric Healthcare, Philips Healthcare and Siemens Healthcare) within the same center and with the same subjects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Fourteen healthy volunteers (50% male, age 26.4±4.7years) were scanned twice on each scanner in an interleaved manner within 3h. Because of differences in gradient and coil specifications, two separate studies were performed with slightly different sequence parameters, with one scanner used across both studies for comparison. Reproducibility was evaluated by means of quantitative cerebral blood flow (CBF) agreement and inter-session variation, both on a region-of-interest (ROI) and voxel level. In addition, a qualitative similarity comparison of the CBF maps was performed by three experienced neuro-radiologists.

RESULTS:

There were no CBF differences between vendors in study 1 (p>0.1), but there were CBF differences of 2-19% between vendors in study 2 (p<0.001 in most gray matter ROIs) and 10-22% difference in CBF values obtained with the same vendor between studies (p<0.001 in most gray matter ROIs). The inter-vendor inter-session variation was not significantly larger than the intra-vendor variation in all (p>0.1) but one of the ROIs (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION:

This study demonstrates the possibility to acquire comparable cerebral CBF maps on scanners of different vendors. Small differences in sequence parameters can have a larger effect on the reproducibility of ASL than hardware or software differences between vendors. These results suggest that researchers should strive to employ identical labeling and readout strategies in multi-center ASL studies.

KEYWORDS:

Arterial spin labeling; Cerebral blood flow; Inter-vendor; Repeatability; Reproducibility

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for Norwegian BIBSYS system
Loading ...
Support Center