The QUASAR reproducibility study, Part II: Results from a multi-center Arterial Spin Labeling test–retest study

Arterial Spin Labeling (ASL) is a method to measure perfusion using magnetically labeled blood water as an endogenous tracer. Being fully non-invasive, this technique is attractive for longitudinal studies of cerebral blood flow in healthy and diseased individuals, or as a surrogate marker of metabo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 104 - 113
Main Authors Petersen, Esben Thade, Mouridsen, Kim, Golay, Xavier
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.01.2010
Elsevier Limited
Subjects
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Arterial Spin Labeling
Blood Volume - physiology
Brain Mapping
Brain research
Cerebral Arteries - anatomy & histology
Cerebral blood flow
Cerebrovascular Circulation - physiology
Female
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act 1996-US
Humans
Male
Measurement techniques
Metabolites
Middle Aged
Perfusion, Multi-center trial
Reproducibility
Reproducibility of Results
Software
Spin Labels
Studies
Young Adult
Arterial Spin Labeling
Perfusion, Multi-center trial
Cerebral blood flow
Reproducibility
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Arterial Spin Labeling (ASL) is a method to measure perfusion using magnetically labeled blood water as an endogenous tracer. Being fully non-invasive, this technique is attractive for longitudinal studies of cerebral blood flow in healthy and diseased individuals, or as a surrogate marker of metabolism. So far, ASL has been restricted mostly to specialist centers due to a generally low SNR of the method and potential issues with user-dependent analysis needed to obtain quantitative measurement of cerebral blood flow (CBF). Here, we evaluated a particular implementation of ASL (called Quantitative STAR labeling of Arterial Regions or QUASAR), a method providing user independent quantification of CBF in a large test–retest study across sites from around the world, dubbed “The QUASAR reproducibility study”. Altogether, 28 sites located in Asia, Europe and North America participated and a total of 284 healthy volunteers were scanned. Minimal operator dependence was assured by using an automatic planning tool and its accuracy and potential usefulness in multi-center trials was evaluated as well. Accurate repositioning between sessions was achieved with the automatic planning tool showing mean displacements of 1.87±0.95 mm and rotations of 1.56±0.66°. Mean gray matter CBF was 47.4±7.5 [ml/100 g/min] with a between-subject standard variation SDb=5.5 [ml/100 g/min] and a within-subject standard deviation SDw=4.7 [ml/100 g/min]. The corresponding repeatability was 13.0 [ml/100 g/min] and was found to be within the range of previous studies.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
All Co-authors on this paper are listed in alphabetic order at the end of this paper.
All acknowledged Co-authors in alphabetic order on this paper
Karsten Alfke1, Iris Asllani2, Karin M Bloch3, Ajna Borogovac4, Patrick Browaeys5, John A Butman6, Marc van Cauteren3, Jon M Chia3, Ivan Dimitrov3, Manus J Donahue7, Neville D Gai6, J Christopher Gatenby8, Stephen Goode9, Adam E Hansen10, Michael Helle1, Shuichi Higano11, Toshinori Hirai12, Hans Hoogduin13, Frank GC Hoogenraad6, Marko K Ivancevic3,14, Alan Jackson15, Geon-Ho Jahng16, Adun Kampaengtip17, EunJu Kim3, Jae Hyoung Kim18, Sung Tae Kim19, Mika Kitajima12, Linda Knutsson20, John Lackey21, Song Lai21, Jiraporn Laothamatas17, David J Larkman22, Henrik BW Larsson23, Jung Hee Lee19, Seung-Koo Lee24, Hanzhang Lu25, Alex L MacKay26, Reto A Meuli5, Kirsten Moffat27, Elizabeth A Moore3, Paul S Morgan9, Takaki Murata11, Burkhard Mädler26,3, Tomoyuki Noguchi28, Ron Peeters29, Nancy K Rollins30, Ronald Shnier27, Stefan Sunaert29, Pia C Sundgren14, E Brian Welch3,8, Dal Mo Yang16, Takashi Yoshiura28, Peter C van Zijl7, Ivan Zimine3.
1Institute of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany; 2Department of Radiology, Columbia University, USA; 3Philips Healthcare MR Clinical Science; 4Department of BioMedical Engineering, Columbia University, USA; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland; 6Diagnostic Radiology Department (DRD), Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA; 7F.M. Kirby Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, USA; 8Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN, USA; 9Academic Radiology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham University Hospital, Queen’s Medical Centre Nottingham, UK; 10Functional Imaging Unit, Department of Radiology, Glostrup Hospital, Denmark; 11Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan; 12Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan; 13BCN Neuroimaging Center (NIC), University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 14Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 15Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Department of Radiology, The University of Manchester, UK; 16Kyung-Hee University, Department of Radiology, East-West Neo Medical Center, Seoul, Korea; 17Department of Radiology, Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand; 18Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Department of Radiology, Seoul, Korea; 19Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 20Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund & Center for Medical Imaging and Physiology, MR division, Lund University Hospital, Sweden; 21Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 22Imperial College London, UK; 23Functional Imaging Unit, Department of Clinical Physiology & Nuclear Medicine, Glostrup Hospital, Denmark; 24Severance Hospital Yonsei University, Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 25Advanced Imaging Research Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, USA; 26Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 27Symbion Clinical Research Imaging Centre, Sydney, Australia; 28Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Japan; 29Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of the Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 30Department of Radiology, Children’s Medical Center of Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA.
Contributions: ETP and XG conceptualized and designed the study. At the individual sites: ETP, XG, KA, IA, KMB, AB, PB, JAB, MVC, JMC, ID, MJD, NDG, JCG, SG, AEH, MH, SH, TH, HH, FGCH, MKI, AJ, GHJ, AK, EJK, JHK, STK, MK, LK, JL, SL, JL, DJL, HBWL, JHL, SKL, HL, ALM, RAM, KM2, EAM, PSM, TM, BM, TN, RP, NKR, RS, SS, PCS, EBW, DMY, TY, PCVZ and IZ obtained approval from the local institutional review board, recruited patients and collected data. ETP, KM1 and XG, analyzed and interpreted the data. ETP and XG drafted and edited the manuscript, assisted by KM1, LK, HL, NDG, MVC, EAM, MJD, AEH and HBWL.
ISSN:1053-8119
1095-9572
1095-9572
DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.07.068