Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2014, Article ID 108691, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/108691
Research Article

Quantifying Cerebellum Grey Matter and White Matter Perfusion Using Pulsed Arterial Spin Labeling

1Department of Radiology and Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, 2021 Sixth Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
2Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA
3Siemens Healthcare, Malvern, PA 19355, USA
4Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA
5Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA
6Department of Physics & Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA

Received 27 February 2014; Accepted 12 April 2014; Published 15 May 2014

Academic Editor: Danny Jiongjiong Wang

Copyright © 2014 Xiufeng Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

To facilitate quantification of cerebellum cerebral blood flow (CBF), studies were performed to systematically optimize arterial spin labeling (ASL) parameters for measuring cerebellum perfusion, segment cerebellum to obtain separate CBF values for grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM), and compare FAIR ASST to PICORE. Cerebellum GM and WM CBF were measured with optimized ASL parameters using FAIR ASST and PICORE in five subjects. Influence of volume averaging in voxels on cerebellar grey and white matter boundaries was minimized by high-probability threshold masks. Cerebellar CBF values determined by FAIR ASST were 43.8 ± 5.1 mL/100 g/min for GM and 27.6 ± 4.5 mL/100 g/min for WM. Quantitative perfusion studies indicated that CBF in cerebellum GM is 1.6 times greater than that in cerebellum WM. Compared to PICORE, FAIR ASST produced similar CBF estimations but less subtraction error and lower temporal, spatial, and intersubject variability. These are important advantages for detecting group and/or condition differences in CBF values.