Koen P.A. Baas1, Bram F. Coolen2, Gustav J. Strijkers2, and Aart J. Nederveen1
1Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Synopsis
We
investigated the reliability of different T1 and T2 relaxometry methods for
arterial and venous blood. While TRIR enables measurements of both venous blood
T1 and T2, T2 estimates from TRIR showed poorer repeatability compared to
TRUST. Moreover, significantly higher venous blood T2 values were observed
using TRIR. Lastly, arterial blood T1 measurements showed a better repeatability
compared to venous T1 measurements using TRIR. These findings advocate for the use of the arterial
T1 measurements instead of venous T1 and the use of TRUST to measure venous
blood T2.
Introduction
T1 and T2 relaxometry measurements of arterial
and venous blood are of great importance in a number of neurovascular
applications. Specifically, arterial T1 is used in the quantification of
cerebral blood flow (CBF) using arterial spin labeling (ASL)1, while from venous
T2, blood oxygenation can be
derived.2 Several MRI sequences
have been proposed to measure arterial and venous blood T1 and T2 relaxation
rates. Li et al.3 described a method for fast measurements of arterial T1, while venous
T2 is commonly measured using T2 Relaxation Under Spin Tagging (TRUST).2 Another method, T2-prepared blood Relaxation Imaging with Inversion Recovery
(TRIR) combines venous T2 and T1 quantification in one sequence4 by acquiring multiple inversion
recovery curves with different T2 preparations.
T1 and T2 estimates from these methods should be reliable before
incorporating them as prior knowledge in quantitative perfusion and oxygenation
estimation. Therefore, we
investigated the intra- and inter-session repeatability of these three (arterial
T1 / TRUST / TRIR) techniques and possible bias between TRUST and TRIR measurements
of venous T2.Methods
Eight healthy volunteers (four female, 28 ± 9 years old)
underwent two scan sessions (see Figure 1), on a Philips 3T Ingenia system
using a 32-channel head coil. Between sessions, volunteers were repositioned on
the MRI table. Three TRUST and TRIR measurements per session were performed in
an interleaved fashion to assess venous blood T1 and T2 in the sagittal sinus. Additionally,
arterial blood T1 was measured three times per session in the carotid arteries
using the sequence described by Li et al.3 These measurements
required changing the position of the volunteers to achieve homogenous
inversion efficiency from the heart to the ICA, and were therefore performed in
consecutive order. All scans were performed and post-processed as described in
previous work.2-4 For intra-session repeatability assessment,
Bland-Altman analysis was performed by comparing all possible combinations of within-session repeated scans. For inter-session repeatability, measurements in both
sessions were compared pairwise. Using the same combinations, coefficients of
variation (CV) were calculated as the ratio of the standard deviation of the
difference between the repeated measurements over the mean of all measurements.Results
Representative TRUST, TRIR and arterial T1 scans together
with their corresponding fits are shown in Figure 2. For venous blood T2
measurements, confidence interval widths of the T2 estimates, expressed as a
percentage of the fitted value, were 14 ± 12% and 3.7 ± 1.0% for TRUST and TRIR
respectively. For venous (from TRIR) and arterial T1 measurements, confidence
intervals of the T1 estimates were 3.0 ± 0.7% and 7.5 ± 2.8%, respectively.
Mean values of TRUST and TRIR based venous blood
T2 values for each volunteer and session are shown in Figure 3 (also see Table
1). TRIR measurements resulted in significantly higher (p < 0.05) T2
values as compared to TRUST (70.1 ± 12.7 vs. 64.1 ± 8.2). Bland-Altman plots of intra- and
intersession repeated measurements are shown in Figure 4. For all scans, the
intra- and inter-session bias was close to zero. Both intra-session and
inter-session CV values were poorer for TRIR (9.2% / 9.2%) as compared to TRUST
(3.9% / 4.4%). Note that for both methods, intra- and inter-session
repeatability was similar. Finally, venous T1 measurements from TRIR also had
slightly poorer intra- and inter-session repeatability (CV values: 3.7% / 4.8%),
as compared to arterial T1 measurements (CV values: 1.6% / 2.5%).Discussion and Conclusion
While TRIR acquisitions have the benefit of
quantifying both T1 and T2 of venous blood,
our data suggests that the TRIR overestimates venous blood T2 values compared to
the more commonly used TRUST sequence. Moreover, TRIR results in poorer intra-
and inter-session repeatability of T1 and T2 estimates compared to the alternative
methods (TRUST and arterial T1), with our CV values of arterial T1
corresponding well to data from Li et al.3 Although
T2 estimates from TRIR had lower repeatability as compared to TRUST, the
confidence intervals of the fits were lowest in case of TRIR. Whether this
originates from biases created by the simultaneous fit or a factor from the
sequence itself is currently being investigated. Overall, our findings advocate
for the use of the arterial T1 measurements instead of venous T1 (e.g. for CBF
quantification in ASL) and the use of TRUST to measure venous blood T2 from
which oxygenation and oxygen extraction fraction can be derived.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Alsop DC, Detre JA, Golay X, Günther M, Hendrikse J, Hernandez‐Garcia L, Lu H, MacIntosh BJ, Parkes LM, Smits M, Van Osch MJ. Recommended implementation of arterial spin‐labeled perfusion MRI for clinical applications: a consensus of the ISMRM perfusion study group and the European consortium for ASL in dementia. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2015 Jan;73(1):102-16.
2. Lu H, Ge Y. Quantitative evaluation of oxygenation in venous vessels using T2‐relaxation‐under‐spin‐tagging MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2008 Aug;60(2):357-63.
3. Li W, Liu P, Lu H, Strouse JJ, van Zijl PC, Qin Q. Fast measurement of blood T1 in the human carotid artery at 3T: Accuracy, precision, and reproducibility. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2017 Jun;77(6):2296-302.
4. Petersen, E.T., De Vis, J.B., Alderliesten, T., Kersbergen, K.J., Benders, M.J.N.L., Hendrikse, J., van den Berg, N. Simultaneous OEF and haematocrit assessment using T2 prepared blood relaxation imaging with inversion recovery. Proceedings International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2012 20, 472