Improving dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI measurement of quantitative cerebral blood flow using corrections for partial volume and nonlinear contrast relaxivity: A xenon computed tomographic comparative study
✍ Scribed by Greg Zaharchuk; Roland Bammer; Matus Straka; Rexford D. Newbould; Jarrett Rosenberg; Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael Mlynash; Maarten G. Lansberg; Neil E. Schwartz; Michael M. Marks; Gregory W. Albers; Michael E. Moseley
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2009
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 700 KB
- Volume
- 30
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1053-1807
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Purpose
To test whether dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI‐based CBF measurements are improved with arterial input function (AIF) partial volume (PV) and nonlinear contrast relaxivity correction, using a gold‐standard CBF method, xenon computed tomography (xeCT).
Materials and Methods
Eighteen patients with cerebrovascular disease underwent xeCT and MRI within 36 h. PV was measured as the ratio of the area under the AIF and the venous output function (VOF) concentration curves. A correction was applied to account for the nonlinear relaxivity of bulk blood (BB). Mean CBF was measured with both techniques and regression analyses both within and between patients were performed.
Results
Mean xeCT CBF was 43.3 ± 13.7 mL/100g/min (mean ± SD). BB correction decreased CBF by a factor of 4.7 ± 0.4, but did not affect precision. The least‐biased CBF measurement was with BB but without PV correction (45.8 ± 17.2 mL/100 g/min, coefficient of variation [COV] = 32%). Precision improved with PV correction, although absolute CBF was mildly underestimated (34.3 ± 10.8 mL/100 g/min, COV = 27%). Between patients correlation was moderate even with both corrections (R = 0.53).
Conclusion
Corrections for AIF PV and nonlinear BB relaxivity improve bolus MRI‐based CBF maps. However, there remain challenges given the moderate between‐patient correlation, which limit diagnostic confidence of such measurements in individual patients. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;30:743–752. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.