van Golen Larissa W, Kuijer Joost P A, Huisman Marc C, IJzerman Richard G, Barkhof Frederik, Diamant Michaela, Lammertsma Adriaan A
Diabetes Center/ Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Dec;40(6):1300-9. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24484. Epub 2013 Nov 8.
To compare cerebral blood flow (CBF) values measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) arterial spin labeling (ASL) with those obtained with [(15)O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET), the gold standard for measuring CBF in vivo.
Data were collected in 11 healthy men and in 20 age- and body mass index (BMI)-matched type 1 diabetic men. Pseudo-continuous ASL (PCASL) data were acquired at 3 T and [(15)O]H2O PET scans were acquired using a high-resolution PET scanner. Input functions were obtained using on-line arterial blood sampling. Whole brain and regional CBF values were compared.
For both modalities, whole brain CBF was similar in both subject groups. In groups combined, average whole brain CBF was 0.30 ± 0.05 mL · cm(-3) · min(-1) for [(15)O]H2O PET and 0.34 ± 0.05 mL · cm(-3) · min(-1) for ASL MRI (P < 0.01). A significant correlation between methods was observed for whole brain, gray and white matter. In 12 out of 33 brain regions a significant difference between methods was observed.
PCASL provides CBF values that correlate with [(15)O]H2O PET-derived values, but is less accurate. PCASL may be an attractive alternative when absolute quantification is not needed.
比较使用磁共振成像(MRI)动脉自旋标记(ASL)测量的脑血流量(CBF)值与使用[(15)O]H2O正电子发射断层扫描(PET)获得的值,后者是体内测量CBF的金标准。
收集了11名健康男性和20名年龄及体重指数(BMI)匹配的1型糖尿病男性的数据。在3T下采集伪连续ASL(PCASL)数据,并使用高分辨率PET扫描仪进行[(15)O]H2O PET扫描。通过在线动脉血采样获得输入函数。比较全脑和局部CBF值。
对于两种方式,两组受试者的全脑CBF相似。在合并组中,[(15)O]H2O PET的平均全脑CBF为0.30±0.05 mL·cm(-3)·min(-1),ASL MRI为0.34±0.05 mL·cm(-3)·min(-1)(P<0.01)。观察到全脑、灰质和白质的方法之间存在显著相关性。在33个脑区中的12个区域观察到方法之间存在显著差异。
PCASL提供的CBF值与[(15)O]H2O PET得出的值相关,但准确性较低。当不需要绝对定量时,PCASL可能是一种有吸引力的替代方法。