Stroke Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Stroke, including details on treatment, recovery, rehabilitation, signs, symptoms.

Is correction necessary when clinically determining quantitative cerebral perfusion parameters from multi-slice dynamic susceptibility contrast MR studies?

Salluzzi M, Frayne R, Smith MR

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada.

Several groups have modified the standard singular value decomposition (SVD) algorithm to produce delay-insensitive cerebral blood flow (CBF) estimates from dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion studies. However, new dependences of CBF estimates on bolus arrival times and slice position in multi-slice studies have been recently recognized. These conflicting findings can be reconciled by accounting for several experimental and algorithmic factors. Using simulation and clinical studies, the non-simultaneous measurement of arterial and tissue concentration curves (relative slice position) in a multi-slice study is shown to affect time-related perfusion parameters, e.g. arterial-tissue-delay measurements. However, the current clinical impact of relative slice position on amplitude-related perfusion parameters, e.g. CBF, can be expected to be small unless any of the following conditions are present individually or in combination: (a) high concentration curve signal-to-noise ratios, (b) small tissue mean transit times, (c) narrow arterial input functions or (d) low temporal resolution of the DSC image sequence. Recent improvements in magnetic resonance (MR) technology can easily be expected to lead to scenarios where these effects become increasingly important sources of inaccuracy for all perfusion parameter estimates. We show that using Fourier interpolated (high temporal resolution) residue functions reduces the systematic error of the perfusion parameters obtained from multi-slice studies.

Published 5 January 2006 in Phys Med Biol, 51(2): 407-24.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

© 2004-2008 Stroke Research Today. All Rights Reserved.