Evaluation of an AIF correction algorithm for dynamic susceptibility 
contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI

Brunecker, P.; Endres, M.; Nolte, C. H.; Schultze, J.; Wegener, S.; Jungehülsing, Gerhard J.; Müller, B.; Kerskens, C. M.; Fiebach, J. B.; Villringer, Arno; Steinbrink, J.

doi:10.1002/mrm.21612

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsStatisticsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Evaluation of an AIF correction algorithm for dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI

MPS-Authors

There are no MPG-Authors available

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Brunecker, P., Endres, M., Nolte, C. H., Schultze, J., Wegener, S., Jungehülsing, G. J., et al. (2008). Evaluation of an AIF correction algorithm for dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 60(1), 102-110. doi:10.1002/mrm.21612.

Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0010-B29D-F

Abstract

For longitudinal studies in patients suffering from cerebrovascular diseases the poor reproducibility of perfusion measurements via dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI (DSC- MRI) is a relevant concern. We evaluate a novel algorithm capable of overcoming limitations in DSC-MRI caused by partial volume and saturation issues in the arterial input function (AIF) by a blood flow stimulation-study. In 21 subjects, perfusion parameters be- fore and after administration of blood flow stimulating L -arginine were calculated utilizing a block-circulant singular value decom- position (cSVD). A total of two different raters and three different rater conditions were employed to select AIFs: Besides 1) an AIF selection by an experienced rater, a beginner rater applied a steady state-oriented strategy, returning; 2) raw; and 3) corrected AIFs. Highly significant changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) by 9.0% ( P < 0.01) could only be found when the AIF correction was performed. To further test for improved reproduc- ibility, in a subgroup of seven subjects the baseline measurement was repeated 6 weeks after the first examination. In this group as well, using the correction algorithm decreased the SD of the dif- ference between the two baseline measurements by 42%.