Mutsaerts Henri J M M, van Osch Matthias J P, Zelaya Fernando O, Wang Danny J J, Nordhøy Wibeke, Wang Yi, Wastling Stephen, Fernandez-Seara Maria A, Petersen E T, Pizzini Francesca B, Fallatah Sameeha, Hendrikse Jeroen, Geier Oliver, Günther Matthias, Golay Xavier, Nederveen Aart J, Bjørnerud Atle, Groote Inge R
Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C.J. Gorter Center for High Field MRI, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Neuroimage. 2015 Jun;113:143-52. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.043. Epub 2015 Mar 24.
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.
Fourteen healthy volunteers (50% male, age 26.4±4.7years) were scanned twice on each scanner in an interleaved manner within 3h. 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.
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).
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.
阻碍动脉自旋标记(ASL)在临床和研究中实现标准化应用的一个主要障碍是,各大MRI供应商的ASL商业实施方案存在显著差异。在本研究中,我们在同一中心对同一批受试者,比较了由三家供应商(通用电气医疗集团、飞利浦医疗和西门子医疗)提供的3T扫描仪上实现的单个相同的二维梯度回波EPI伪连续ASL(PCASL)序列。
14名健康志愿者(50%为男性,年龄26.4±4.7岁)在3小时内以交叉方式在每台扫描仪上扫描两次。由于梯度和线圈规格不同,进行了两项序列参数略有不同的单独研究,两项研究中使用同一台扫描仪进行比较。通过定量脑血流量(CBF)一致性和不同扫描间的变化,在感兴趣区(ROI)和体素水平上评估再现性。此外,由三位经验丰富的神经放射科医生对CBF图进行定性相似性比较。
在研究1中,各供应商之间的CBF没有差异(p>0.1),但在研究2中,各供应商之间的CBF差异为2%-19%(大多数灰质ROI中p<0.001),并且同一供应商在两项研究中获得的CBF值差异为10%-22%(大多数灰质ROI中p<0.001)。除了一个ROI(p<0.001)外,所有ROI中供应商间不同扫描间的变化均不显著大于供应商内的变化(p>0.1)。
本研究证明了在不同供应商的扫描仪上获取可比的脑CBF图的可能性。序列参数的微小差异对ASL再现性的影响可能大于供应商之间的硬件或软件差异。这些结果表明,研究人员在多中心ASL研究中应努力采用相同的标记和读出策略。