Zaharchuk Greg, Bammer Roland, Straka Matus, Newbould Rexford D, Rosenberg Jarrett, Olivot Jean-Marc, Mlynash Michael, Lansberg Maarten G, Schwartz Neil E, Marks Michael M, Albers Gregory W, Moseley Michael E
Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Oct;30(4):743-52. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21908.
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).
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.
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).
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.
采用金标准脑血流量(CBF)测量方法——氙计算机断层扫描(xeCT),测试基于动态磁敏感对比增强磁共振成像(MRI)的CBF测量在采用动脉输入函数(AIF)部分容积(PV)和非线性对比剂弛豫率校正后是否得到改善。
18例脑血管疾病患者在36小时内接受了xeCT和MRI检查。PV测量为AIF与静脉输出函数(VOF)浓度曲线下面积之比。对全血(BB)的非线性弛豫率进行了校正。两种技术均测量了平均CBF,并在患者内部和患者之间进行了回归分析。
xeCT测量的平均CBF为43.3±13.7 mL/100g/min(平均值±标准差)。BB校正使CBF降低了4.7±0.4倍,但不影响测量精度。偏差最小的CBF测量是采用BB校正但未进行PV校正(45.8±17.2 mL/100 g/min,变异系数[COV]=32%)。PV校正提高了测量精度,尽管绝对CBF略有低估(34.3±10.8 mL/100 g/min,COV=27%)。即使采用两种校正方法,患者之间的相关性也为中等(R=0.53)。
AIF PV和非线性BB弛豫率校正可改善基于团注MRI的CBF图。然而,鉴于患者之间的相关性为中等,仍然存在挑战,这限制了此类测量在个体患者中的诊断可信度。