Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 30, 2025
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quantification of Pulmonary Perfusion using Calibrated Arterial Spin Labeling
Published on: May 30, 2011
Effects of Acquisition Parameter Modifications and Field Strength on the Reproducibility of Brain Perfusion
K P A Baas1, J Petr2,3, J P A Kuijer4
1From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (K.P.A.B., A.J.N.), Amsterdam University Medical Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands k.p.baas@amsterdamumc.nl.
Background And Purpose:
Although the added diagnostic value of arterial spin-labeling is shown in various cerebral pathologies, its use in clinical practice is limited. To encourage clinical adoption of ASL, we investigated the reproducibility of CBF measurements and the effects of variations in acquisition parameters compared to the recommended ASL implementation.
Materials And Methods:
Thirty-four volunteers (mean age, 57.8 ± 17.0 years; range, 22-80 years) underwent two separate sessions (1.5T and 3T scanners from a single vendor) using a 15-channel head coil. Both sessions contained repeated 3D and 2D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling scans using vendor-recommended acquisition parameters (recommendation paper-based), followed by three 3D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling scans, two with postlabeling delays of 1600 and 2000 ms and one with increased spatial resolution. All scans were single postlabeling delay. Intrasession (identical acquisitions, scanned five minutes apart) and intersession (first 2D and 3D acquisitions of two sessions) reproducibility was examined as well as the effect of parameter variations on CBF.
Results:
Intrasession CBF reproducibility was similar across image readouts and field strengths (within-subject coefficient of variation between 4.0% and 6.7%). Intersession within-subject coefficient of variation ranged from 6.6% to 14.8%. At 3T, the 3D acquisition with a higher spatial resolution resulted in less mixing of GM and WM signal, thus decreasing the bias in GM CBF between the 2D and 3D acquisitions (ΔCBF = 2.49 mL/100g/min [P < .001]). Postlabeling delay variations caused a modest bias (ΔCBF between -3.78 [P < .001] and 2.83 [P < .001] mL/100g/min).
Conclusions:
Arterial spin-labeling imaging is reproducible at both field strengths, and the reproducibility is not significantly correlated with age. Furthermore, 3T tolerates more acquisition parameter variations and allows more extensive optimizations so that 3D and 2D acquisitions can be compared.
