Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Amongst the various implementations of arterial spin labeling MRI methods for quantifying cerebral perfusion, the QUASAR method is unique. By using a combination of labeling with and without flow suppression gradients, the QUASAR method offers the separation of macrovascular and tissue signals. This permits local arterial input functions to be defined and "model-free" analysis, using numerical deconvolution, to be used. However, it remains unclear whether arterial spin labeling data are best treated using model-free or model-based analysis. This work provides a critical comparison of these two approaches for QUASAR arterial spin labeling in the healthy brain. An existing two-component (arterial and tissue) model was extended to the mixed flow suppression scheme of QUASAR to provide an optimal model-based analysis. The model-based analysis was extended to incorporate dispersion of the labeled bolus, generally regarded as the major source of discrepancy between the two analysis approaches. Model-free and model-based analyses were compared for perfusion quantification including absolute measurements, uncertainty estimation, and spatial variation in cerebral blood flow estimates. Major sources of discrepancies between model-free and model-based analysis were attributed to the effects of dispersion and the degree to which the two methods can separate macrovascular and tissue signal. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Original publication

DOI

10.1002/mrm.24372

Type

Journal article

Journal

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Publication Date

01/05/2013

Volume

69

Pages

1466 - 1475