TY - JOUR
T1 - Multi-vendor reliability of arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI using a near-identical sequence
T2 - Implications for multi-center studies
AU - Mutsaerts, Henri J.M.M.
AU - van Osch, Matthias J.P.
AU - Zelaya, Fernando O.
AU - Wang, Danny J.J.
AU - Nordhøy, Wibeke
AU - Wang, Yi
AU - Wastling, Stephen
AU - Fernandez-Seara, Maria A.
AU - Petersen, E. T.
AU - Pizzini, Francesca B.
AU - Fallatah, Sameeha
AU - Hendrikse, Jeroen
AU - Geier, Oliver
AU - Günther, Matthias
AU - Golay, Xavier
AU - Nederveen, Aart J.
AU - Bjørnerud, Atle
AU - Groote, Inge R.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was founded within the COST-AID Action BM1103 (European Cooperation in Science and Technology-Arterial spin labeling Initiative in Dementia), and financially supported by a Short Term Scientific Mission ( ECOST-STSM-BM1103-030114-037267 ) grant from this Action. This manuscript has been presented and discussed multiple times at international meetings of this Action. We thank the vendors for their support, which enabled us to implement a near-identical sequence on all three platforms. The authors are grateful to M Kleppestø and M Skurdal for help with data collection and to W.V. Potters for help with post-processing.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2015/6/1
Y1 - 2015/6/1
N2 - 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 ± 4.7. years) were scanned twice on each scanner in an interleaved manner within 3. h. 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.
AB - 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 ± 4.7. years) were scanned twice on each scanner in an interleaved manner within 3. h. 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.
KW - Arterial spin labeling
KW - Cerebral blood flow
KW - Inter-vendor
KW - Repeatability
KW - Reproducibility
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964227415&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964227415&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.043
DO - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.043
M3 - Article
C2 - 25818685
AN - SCOPUS:84964227415
SN - 1053-8119
VL - 113
SP - 143
EP - 152
JO - NeuroImage
JF - NeuroImage
ER -