Program Information
Quantification of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast MRI: Comparison of Calibration Methods Using Venous Output Function and Arterial Spin Labeling
P Wang1*, T Chang2 , K Huang2 , C Yeh3 , H Chien4 , Y Wai3 , T Lee2 , H Liu5 , (1) Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, (2) Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan, (3) Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan, (4) Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan, (5) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Presentations
TH-CD-207-2 (Thursday, July 16, 2015) 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Room: 207
Purpose: To evaluate the validity of the calibration of arterial input function (AIF) by using a venous output function (VOF) for the quantification of cerebral blood flow (CBF) in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC-MRI), by comparing to the arterial spin labeling (ASL) measurement.
Method: Fourteen patients with unilateral ICA stenosis enrolled in the study on a 3T clinical MRI scanner. The ASL-CBF map was calculated by averaging 45 dynamic points acquired by using a Q2TIPS sequence. For DSC perfusion analysis, AIF was selected to derive the relative CBF (rCBF) map and the delay (Tmax) map; VOF with signal saturation was corrected by a small vein which was amplified and time-shifted to match the base and flanks of the original VOF. The DSC-CBF map was corrected by two different patient-specific correction factors (CF): (1) CF1: the ratio of the mean ASL- and DSC-CBF obtained from the mask based on Tmax < 3s, the gray matter mask and the exclusion of large vessels; (2) CF2: the ratio of the area under the first-pass phase in AIF and VOF concentration time curves.
Result: Average whole-brain (WB) DSC-CBF calculated by CF1 and CF2 showed the same precision (coefficient of variation [COV] = 22%), while CBFCF2 (100.26 ± 23.36 ml/100g/min [mean ± SD]) was higher than CBFCF1 (37.4 ± 8.1 ml/100g/min). Significant correlation (R= 0.632; P<0.05) was found between the results obtained from these two calibration approaches.
Conclusion: The degree of linear correlation between the WB DSC-CBF estimates obtained by AIF PV correction and ASL-based correction was significant. Comparing with CBF values obtained using ASL, the DSC-CBF estimates were high even after applying AIF PV correction. The over-estimation may come from the partial volume effect in VOF and other sources of errors in the DSC-MRI quantification.
Contact Email: