Noninvasive imaging of cerebral blood flow provides critical information to understand normal brain physiology as well as to identify and manage patients with neurological disorders. To date, the reference standard for cerebral blood flow measurements is considered to be positron emission tomography using injection of the [(15)O]-water radiotracer. Although [(15)O]-water has been used to study brain perfusion under normal and pathological conditions, it is not widely used in clinical settings due to the need for an on-site cyclotron, the invasive nature of arterial blood sampling, and experimental complexity. As an alternative, arterial spin labeling is a promising magnetic resonance imaging technique that magnetically labels arterial blood as it flows into the brain to map cerebral blood flow. As arterial spin labeling becomes more widely adopted in research and clinical settings, efforts have sought to standardize the method and validate its cerebral blood flow values against positron emission tomography-based cerebral blood flow measurements. The purpose of this work is to critically review studies that performed both [(15)O]-water positron emission tomography and arterial spin labeling to measure brain perfusion, with the aim of better understanding the accuracy and reproducibility of arterial spin labeling relative to the positron emission tomography reference standard.

Purpose

To compare performance of sequential and Hadamard-encoded pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeling (PCASL).

Materials and methods

Monte Carlo simulations and in vivo experiments were performed in 10 healthy subjects. Field strength and sequence: 5-delay sequential (5-del. Seq.), 7-delay Hadamard-encoded (7-del. Had.), and a single-delay (1-del.) PCASL, without and with vascular crushing at 3.0T. The errors and variations of cerebral blood flow (CBF) and arterial transit time (ATT) from simulations and the CBF and ATT estimates and variations in gray matter (GM) with different ATT ranges were compared. Pairwise t-tests with Bonferroni correction were used.

Results

The simulations and in vivo experiments showed that 1-del. PCASL underestimated GM CBF due to insufficient postlabeling delay (PLD) (37.2 ± 8.1 vs. 47.3 ± 8.5 and 47.3 ± 9.0 ml/100g/min, P ≤ 6.5 × 10^-6 ), while 5-del. Seq. and 7-del. Had. yielded comparable GM CBF (P ≥ 0.49). 5-del. Seq. was more reproducible for CBF (P = 4.7 × 10^-4 ), while 7-del. Had. was more reproducible for ATT (P = 0.033). 5-del. Seq. was more prone to intravascular artifacts and yielded lower GM ATTs compared to 7-del. Had. without crushing (1.13 ± 0.18 vs. 1.23 ± 0.13 seconds, P = 2.3 × 10^-3 ), but they gave comparable ATTs with crushing (P = 0.12). ATTs measured with crushing were longer than those without crushing (P ≤ 6.7 × 10^-4 ), but CBF was not affected (P ≥ 0.16).

Conclusion

The theoretical signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) gain through Hadamard encoding was confirmed experimentally. For 1-del., a PLD of 1.8 seconds is recommended for healthy subjects. With current parameters, 5-del. Seq. was more reproducible for CBF, and 7-del. Had. for ATT. Vascular crushing may help reduce variations in multidelay experiments without compromising tissue CBF or ATT measurements.

Level of evidence

1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1119-1132.