Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
    • 2024 AJNR Journal Awards
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcast
    • AJNR Scantastics
    • Video Articles
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Policies
    • Fast publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Submit a Case for the Case Collection
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
    • 2024 AJNR Journal Awards
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcast
    • AJNR Scantastics
    • Video Articles
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Policies
    • Fast publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Submit a Case for the Case Collection
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

Welcome to the new AJNR, Updated Hall of Fame, and more. Read the full announcements.


AJNR is seeking candidates for the position of Associate Section Editor, AJNR Case Collection. Read the full announcement.

 

Research ArticleADULT BRAIN

Head-to-Head Visual Comparison between Brain Perfusion SPECT and Arterial Spin-Labeling MRI with Different Postlabeling Delays in Alzheimer Disease

T. Kaneta, O. Katsuse, T. Hirano, M. Ogawa, K. Yoshida, T. Odawara, Y. Hirayasu and T. Inoue
American Journal of Neuroradiology August 2017, 38 (8) 1562-1568; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5238
T. Kaneta
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (T.K., T.H., M.O., K.Y., T.I.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Kaneta
O. Katsuse
bPsychiatry (O.K., T.O., Y.H.), Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for O. Katsuse
T. Hirano
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (T.K., T.H., M.O., K.Y., T.I.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Hirano
M. Ogawa
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (T.K., T.H., M.O., K.Y., T.I.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for M. Ogawa
K. Yoshida
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (T.K., T.H., M.O., K.Y., T.I.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for K. Yoshida
T. Odawara
bPsychiatry (O.K., T.O., Y.H.), Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Odawara
Y. Hirayasu
bPsychiatry (O.K., T.O., Y.H.), Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Y. Hirayasu
T. Inoue
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (T.K., T.H., M.O., K.Y., T.I.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Inoue
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Arterial spin-labeling MR imaging has been recently developed as a noninvasive technique with magnetically labeled arterial blood water as an endogenous contrast medium for the evaluation of CBF. Our aim was to compare arterial spin-labeling MR imaging and SPECT in the visual assessment of CBF in patients with Alzheimer disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 33 patients with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, CBF images were obtained by using both arterial spin-labeling–MR imaging with a postlabeling delay of 1.5 seconds and 2.5 seconds (PLD1.5 and PLD2.5, respectively) and brain perfusion SPECT. Twenty-two brain regions were visually assessed, and the diagnostic confidence of Alzheimer disease was recorded.

RESULTS: Among all arterial spin-labeling images, 84.9% of PLD1.5 and 9% of PLD2.5 images showed the typical pattern of advanced Alzheimer disease (ie, decreased CBF in the bilateral parietal, temporal, and frontal lobes). PLD1.5, PLD2.5, and SPECT imaging resulted in obviously different visual assessments. PLD1.5 showed a broad decrease in CBF, which could have been due to an early perfusion. In contrast, PLD2.5 did not appear to be influenced by an early perfusion but showed fewer pathologic findings than SPECT.

CONCLUSIONS: The distinctions observed by us should be carefully considered in the visual assessments of Alzheimer disease. Further studies are required to define the patterns of change in arterial spin-labeling–MR imaging associated with Alzheimer disease.

ABBREVIATIONS:

AD
Alzheimer disease
ASL
arterial spin-labeling
MCI
mild cognitive impairment
MMSE
Mini-Mental State Examination
PLD
postlabeling delay
PLD1.5
postlabeling delay of 1.5 seconds
PLD2.5
postlabeling delay of 2.5 seconds

For the imaging diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD), CBF is typically evaluated with brain perfusion SPECT.1,2 MR imaging is also commonly performed, chiefly for the evaluation of atrophy and ischemic changes in the brain. Obtaining these images simultaneously would be significantly beneficial to both patients and caregivers. Arterial spin-labeling (ASL) MR imaging has been recently developed as a noninvasive technique with magnetically labeled arterial blood water as an endogenous contrast medium for the evaluation of CBF.3⇓⇓–6 Several studies have reported interesting perfusion comparisons between patients with various forms of dementia and demographically matched healthy controls. Both AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have been associated with hypoperfusion in the middle occipital areas, medial temporal lobe, and especially the parietal lobe.7 Similar hypoperfusion has been reported in the posterior cingulate and precuneus, in addition to frontal and parietal regions.8,9 ASL-MR imaging is a potentially useful tool for the differential diagnosis of dementia.10,11 However, most studies have performed voxelwise or ROI analyses to detect abnormal findings in patients with AD compared with healthy patients or those with other forms of dementia. To date, only a few studies of AD have focused on visual assessment with ASL-MR imaging, mainly because of the lack of established criteria for using ASL-MR imaging to diagnose AD.

Pseudocontinuous ASL, the most common form of ASL, is a distinct form of pulsed and continuous labeling and is recommended for clinical imaging by the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Workshop on Perfusion Imaging.12 For ASL imaging, arterial water in the neck is labeled with a radiofrequency pulse and the brain is imaged after a fixed time interval, which is termed the postlabeling delay (PLD) and is the key parameter of ASL imaging. However, the optimal PLD for the evaluation of patients with dementia is unknown. Many previous studies of AD have used a PLD of 1.5 seconds (PLD1.5),13,14 while others have used 2.0 seconds.15 The International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Workshop recommends 2.0 seconds for adult clinical patients,12 but a longer PLD might be appropriate for elderly patients due to their relatively slow blood flow. In the present study, we performed a clinical visual assessment to compare the CBF images obtained by using ASL-MR imaging or brain perfusion SPECT in patients with AD. PLDs of 1.5 and 2.5 seconds (PLD2.5) were used for ASL-MR imaging.

Materials and Methods

We recruited 33 patients who underwent brain MR imaging and SPECT for the diagnosis of AD or MCI due to AD between September 2015 and June 2016. Patients with AD met the criteria of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke–Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders Association for probable AD.16 Patients were excluded from the study if they had a significant history of psychiatric or neurologic disorders other than AD, including stroke, head injury, epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, alcohol abuse, and other serious medical conditions. All patients underwent MR imaging, SPECT, and standard dementia screening, which included a medical history and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and neuropsychological testing. SPECT and MR imaging were performed ≤1 month apart. The local institutional review board approved the study, and all subjects provided written informed consent.

MR Imaging

MR imaging was performed with a 3T MR imaging system (Discovery 750w; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and a 12-channel head coil. Structural imaging for anatomic information was performed with a sagittal 3D T1-weighted sequence (TR = 6.6 ms, TE = 2 ms, flip angle = 14°, matrix = 256 × 256, 170 sections, voxel size = 1.0 × 0.9 × 0.9 mm3, FOV = 23 × 23 cm) with an acquisition time of 6 minutes.

A whole-brain pseudocontinuous ASL 3D perfusion sequence was acquired (3D fast spin-echo acquisition with background suppression). The imaging protocol with PLD1.5 was TR = 4641 ms, TE = 10.7 ms, locations = 36, FOV = 23 × 23 cm, voxel size = 2 × 2 × 4 mm3, labeling duration = 1.5 seconds, NEX = 1, and an acquisition time of 1 minute 33 seconds. The imaging protocol with PLD2.5 was TR = 5336 ms, TE = 10.7 ms, and NEX = 2. All other parameters were the same, and the acquisition time was 2 minutes 51 seconds.

Brain Perfusion SPECT

The SPECT scans began 15 minutes after the intravenous injection of 148 MBq of iodine 123 N-isopropyl-p-iodoamphetamine (123I-IMP) (Nihon Mediphysics, Hyogo, Japan) and were performed for 30 minutes by using a SPECT/CT scanner (Symbia T16; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The SPECT scans were acquired by using low-medium-energy general purpose collimation, a 128 × 128 matrix of 3.3-mm pixel size, and 300 s/rotation in a continuous-rotation mode. SPECT reconstruction was performed with a Butterworth filter for filtered back-projection with a cutoff = 0.35/cm and an order of 8. A uniform attenuation correction was performed by using the Chang method, with μ = 0.11.

Visual Assessment

Two board-certified radiologists who are also nuclear medicine physicians with >10 years of experience in reading MR imaging and SPECT brain images and 2 years of experience reading ASL-MR imaging independently reviewed the images obtained in the present investigation without the clinical information of the patient. SPECT and ASL-MR imaging were shown with a section thickness of 6.6 and 6.4 mm, respectively. We used the scoring sheet shown in Fig 1 to assess 22 brain regions. The regions were located at the levels of the vertex, lateral ventricle, basal ganglia, and cerebellum. The raters scored each region by using a 4-point scale, in which zero indicated normal CBF; 1, a mild decrease; 2, a moderate decease; and 3, a severe decrease. The diagnostic confidence of AD was also scored between 0 and 4, in which 0 indicated definitely not AD; 1, probably not AD; 2, undetermined; 3, probably AD; and 4, definitely AD. ASL-MR images were displayed in gray-scale and in color-scale fused with T1-weighted images. SPECT images were displayed in color.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

The regions used for scoring brain images. We evaluated 22 regions located at the levels of the vertex, lateral ventricle, basal ganglia, and cerebellum. The raters scored each region with a 4-point scale, where 0 is a normal CBF, 1 is a mild decrease, 2 is a moderate decease, and 3 is a severe decrease.

Statistical Analysis

The interrater variability was assessed for the diagnostic confidence of AD by using the κ statistic. The diagnostic confidence was evaluated with not only the 2-point scale but also positive (3 and 4) or negative (0–2) scores for AD diagnosis. The total scores for SPECT, PLD1.5, and PLD2.5 from each rater were analyzed by using a Friedman test. Data were analyzed in Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington) and JMP12 (SAS, Cary, North Carolina). A P < .01 was statistically significant.

Results

Demographic Findings

Patient demographics are shown in Table 1, including age, the male-to-female ratio, and MMSE scores. There was no difference in age, but a significant difference in MMSE (P < .01) was observed between patients with AD and those with AD-induced MCI.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Demographic and neuropsychological summary of the participantsa

Visual Assessment

Table 2 shows the results of the visual assessment as the percentage of patients diagnosed with AD (score of 3 or 4) for each rater. The agreement concerning the percentage of patients with an AD diagnosis between the 2 raters is also shown. These results are presented for 3 groups: namely, the total population, the AD group (MMSE ≦ 21), and the AD-induced MCI group (MMSE > 21). Both raters observed that for the total population, the AD group, and the AD-induced MCI group, PLD1.5 imaging had the highest positive rate for AD diagnosis, while PLD2.5 imaging had the lowest. Moreover, the positive rate for AD diagnosis was higher for the AD group than for the MCI group (Table 2). The Friedman analysis of variance test revealed a significant difference in total scores among all 3 imaging modalities (P < .01), and the Wilcoxon test revealed a significant difference between the 2 groups in the assessment of PLD1.5, PLD2.5, and SPECT images (P < .01) (Fig 2). There were no significant differences between the AD and AD-induced MCI groups in the total score for 3 imaging modalities. The interrater agreements were low for both the 5-point or 2-alternative scoring of AD (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

The results of visual assessments for the diagnosis of AD

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Interrater agreement

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

The comparisons of the total scores of the 2 raters for PLD1.5, PLD2.5, and SPECT images. The Friedman analysis of variance showed a significant difference among all 3 groups (P < .01), and the Wilcoxon test showed a significant difference between the 2 raters for the PLD1.5, PLD2.5, and SPECT total scores (P < .01).

Case Presentations

Case 1 was an 86-year-old woman with AD. Her MMSE score was 14. The ASL-MR imaging and SPECT images for this patient are shown in Fig 3. Case 2 was an 83-year-old woman with AD. Her MMSE score was 19. The images for this patient are shown in Fig 4. Case 3 was a 73-year-old woman with MCI due to AD. Her MMSE score was 23. The images for this patient are shown in Fig 5.

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

An 86-year-old woman with AD. The patient had an MMSE score of 14. Axial images of T2-weighted MR imaging (A), ASL-MR imaging with PLD1.5 in a color-scale fused with T1-weighted MR imaging (B), ASL-MR imaging with PLD2.5 in a color-scale fused with T1-weighted MR imaging (C), and brain perfusion SPECT at the level of the parietal lobe, corona radiata, basal ganglia, and cerebellum (D). Both raters indicated a score of 4 (definitely AD) for PLD1.5 and SPECT and 1 (probably not AD) for PLD2.5.

Fig 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 4.

An 83-year-old woman with AD. The patient had an MMSE score of 19. Axial images of T2-weighted MR imaging (A), fused T1-weighted and PLD1.5 ASL-MR imaging (B), fused T1-weighted and PLD2.5 ASL-MR imaging (C), and brain perfusion SPECT (D). Both raters indicated a score of 4 for PLD1.5 and 2 (undetermined) for PLD2.5. One rater indicated a score of 3 (probably AD) and another rater indicated a score of 4 for SPECT.

Fig 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 5.

A 73-year-old woman with MCI. The patient had an MMSE score of 23. Axial images of T2-weighted MR imaging (A), fused T1-weighted and PLD1.5 ASL-MR imaging (B), fused T1-weighted and PLD2.5 ASL-MR imaging (C), and brain perfusion SPECT (D). Both raters scored 4 for PLD1.5. However, 1 rater indicated a score of 1 (probably not AD) for PLD2.5 and 2 for SPECT, while another rater indicated a score of 0 (definitely not AD) for PLD2.5, and 1 for SPECT.

Discussion

We clearly observed differences in the visual assessments of PLD1.5, PLD2.5, and SPECT images. The total scores of the 2 raters were highest for the PLD1.5 images; this finding suggests a large decrease in CBF. Indeed, these scores were diminished or ambiguous in PLD2.5 images. SPECT findings were of intermediate severity compared with those for the PLD1.5 and PLD2.5 images. These findings appeared to have a profound effect on the diagnostic confidence of AD—that is, for both raters, the positive rate for AD diagnosis was very high (approximately 90%) with a high agreement rate for PLD1.5 images, while the diagnostic confidence of AD was low for PLD2.5 images with a low agreement rate. In addition, SPECT images were associated with a moderately high diagnostic confidence and agreement rate. The positive rate of AD diagnosis for the SPECT images in the present investigation was consistent with that of previous studies.1,2

In the present study, the PLD1.5 images often showed marked bilateral decreases in signal intensity in the frontal and temporoparietal lobes, even for patients with AD-induced MCI, but these findings were mostly not present in the PLD2.5 images (case 3, Fig 5). A previous study using PLD1.5 for patients with cerebrovascular disease reported a low ASL signal with surrounding cortical areas showing a high signal intensity in the middle cerebral artery–anterior cerebral artery and middle cerebral artery–posterior cerebral artery borderzones. This phenomenon was termed the “borderzone sign”.17 Another recent study evaluated the performance of PLD1.5 compared with SPECT in patients with AD and reported that PLD1.5 images frequently showed the borderzone sign.18 Our results suggest the presence of the borderzone sign for PLD1.5, but not PLD2.5. The presence of the borderzone sign in ASL-MR images with a short PLD, but not in those with a long PLD, could have been due to an early perfusion adjacent to the main cerebral arteries. In fact, our PLD2.5 images did not frequently show such a broad decrease in CBF, and neither did the SPECT images.

In the present study, the PLD2.5 images frequently showed only minor pathologic findings with a low image contrast. Generally, a long PLD decreases the signal-to-noise ratio because of T1 relaxation. Thus, we doubled the number of excitations for PLD2.5 compared with PLD1.5; however, a greater number of excitations or the modification of some other parameter might be necessary to improve image contrast and quality.

A previous study comparing PET using FDG and ASL-MR imaging using PLD1.5 in patients with AD19 reported that both methods showed similar regional abnormalities and have comparable diagnostic accuracy in AD. The PLD1.5 images of this previous study were different from ours, which did not show decreased CBF in the frontal lobes. The findings of this previous study also contradict those in another study that reported decreased CBF in the frontal lobes of patients with AD.20 Another study performed multidelay multiparametric ASL for patients with stroke; however, their PLD1.5 images did not show decreased CBF in the frontal lobes but resembled those of PLD2.5 images.21 Such conflicting results between these studies may be due to scanner differences, parameters other than PLD, or other experimental differences.

There is a strong link between brain metabolism and CBF.22 Thus, SPECT images have been generally interpreted in a manner similar to that of FDG-PET. However, as our results show, ASL-MR images can change depending on the PLD and show significantly different findings from SPECT. The use of FDG criteria for ASL-MR imaging diagnosis of AD increases the risk of over- or underdiagnosis. Further studies will be needed to establish the optimal conditions for ASL-MR imaging in the diagnosis of AD and to define the dynamic temporal patterns of ASL-MR images associated with the development of AD.

Regarding the differentiation of AD and AD-induced MCI, we did not observe significant differences in total scores of the 3 modalities between the AD and AD-induced MCI groups. The positive rates for AD diagnosis for the AD group were slightly higher than those for the AD-induced MCI group; however, the differences were small. Further studies are required to clarify the usefulness of ASL for the discrimination of AD and AD-induced MCI.

The interrater agreements were low in the present study, even for the 2-alternative scoring method. The participants in our study had relatively high MMSE scores. Only 1 participant had an MMSE score of <10, and 5 of the participants had scores of <15, which could have resulted in a low interrater agreement.

The present study has several limitations. First, the sample size was small; a larger sample would produce more reliable results. Second, we did not perform MR angiography due to tight time constraints. Third, no images of cognitively healthy participants were used as controls; thus, we could not evaluate the accuracy of the visual-based diagnosis. Finally, an optimal PLD could not be determined in the present study. These limitations should be considered for future research.

Conclusions

Significant differences in visual assessments were observed for PLD1.5, PLD2.5, and SPECT images. PLD1.5 images showed a robust decrease in CBF, which could have been due to an early perfusion. In contrast, PLD2.5 did not appear to be influenced by an early perfusion but showed fewer pathologic findings than SPECT. Visual assessment of AD should be performed with attention to these distinctions. Further studies are required to define the dynamic temporal ASL-MR imaging pattern associated with AD.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Yuki Koyo for his assistance with data collection and analyses, Dr. Ayako Hino for reading images, and Mr. Naoki Hirata for his advice on the processing of ASL-MR imaging.

Footnotes

  • We declare that all human and animal studies have been approved by the institutional review board of Yokohama City University School of Medicine and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. We declare that all patients gave informed consent prior to inclusion in this study.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jagust W,
    2. Thisted R,
    3. Devous MD Sr., et al
    . SPECT perfusion imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: a clinical-pathologic study. Neurology 2001;56:950–56 doi:10.1212/WNL.56.7.950 pmid:11294935
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bonte FJ,
    2. Weiner MF,
    3. Bigio EH, et al
    . Brain blood flow in the dementias: SPECT with histopathologic correlation in 54 patients. Radiology 1997;202:793–97 doi:10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051035 pmid:9051035
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Dai W,
    2. Lopez OL,
    3. Carmichael OT, et al
    . Mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease: patterns of altered cerebral blood flow at MR imaging. Radiology 2009;250:856–66 doi:10.1148/radiol.2503080751 pmid:19164119
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Chao LL,
    2. Pa J,
    3. Duarte A, et al
    . Patterns of cerebral hypoperfusion in amnestic and dysexecutive MCI. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009;23:245–52 doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e318199ff46 pmid:19812467
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Johnson NA,
    2. Jahng GH,
    3. Weiner MW, et al
    . Pattern of cerebral hypoperfusion in Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment measured with arterial spin-labeling MR imaging: initial experience. Radiology 2005;234:851–59 doi:10.1148/radiol.2343040197 pmid:15734937
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Asllani I,
    2. Habeck C,
    3. Scarmeas N, et al
    . Multivariate and univariate analysis of continuous arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI in Alzheimer's disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2008;28:725–36 doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600570 pmid:17960142
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Alexopoulos P,
    2. Sorg C,
    3. Förschler A, et al
    . Perfusion abnormalities in mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia in Alzheimer's disease measured by pulsed arterial spin labeling MRI. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2012;262:69–77 doi:10.1007/s00406-011-0226-2 pmid:21786091
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Yoshiura T,
    2. Hiwatashi A,
    3. Noguchi T, et al
    . Arterial spin labelling at 3-T MR imaging for detection of individuals with Alzheimer's disease. Eur Radiol 2009;19:2819–25 doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1511-6 pmid:19588145
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Mak HK,
    2. Chan Q,
    3. Zhang Z, et al
    . Quantitative assessment of cerebral hemodynamic parameters by QUASAR arterial spin labeling in Alzheimer's disease and cognitively normal elderly adults at 3-Tesla. J Alzheimers Dis 2012;31:33–44 doi:10.3233/JAD-2012-111877 pmid:22504315
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Du AT,
    2. Jahng GH,
    3. Hayasaka S, et al
    . Hypoperfusion in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease by arterial spin labeling MRI. Neurology 2006;67:1215–20 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000238163.71349.78 pmid:17030755
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Steketee RM,
    2. Bron EE,
    3. Meijboom R, et al
    . Early-stage differentiation between presenile Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia using arterial spin labeling MRI. Eur Radiol 2016;26:244–53 doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3789-x pmid:26024845
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Alsop DC,
    2. Detre JA,
    3. Golay X, et al
    . 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. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:102–16 doi:10.1002/mrm.25197 pmid:24715426
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Chen Y,
    2. Wolk DA,
    3. Reddin JS, et al
    . Voxel-level comparison of arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI and FDG-PET in Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2011;77:1977–85 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823a0ef7 pmid:22094481
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Verclytte S,
    2. Lopes R,
    3. Lenfant P, et al
    . Cerebral hypoperfusion and hypometabolism detected by arterial spin labeling MRI and FDG-PET in early-onset Alzheimer's disease. J Neuroimaging 2016;26:207–12 doi:10.1111/jon.12264 pmid:26031943
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Binnewijzend MA,
    2. Kuijer JP,
    3. Benedictus MR, et al
    . Cerebral blood flow measured with 3D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling MR imaging in Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment: a marker for disease severity. Radiology 2013;267:221–30 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120928 pmid:23238159
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. McKhann G,
    2. Drachman D,
    3. Folstein M, et al
    . Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Service Task Force on Alzheimer Disease. Neurology 1984;34:939–44 doi:10.1212/WNL.34.7.939 pmid:6610841
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Zaharchuk G,
    2. Bammer R,
    3. Straka M, et al
    . Arterial spin-label imaging in patients with normal bolus perfusion-weighted MR imaging findings: pilot identification of the borderzone sign. Radiology 2009;252:797–807 doi:10.1148/radiol.2523082018 pmid:19703858
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Takahashi H,
    2. Ishii K,
    3. Hosokawa C, et al
    . Clinical application of 3D arterial spin-labeled brain perfusion imaging for Alzheimer disease: comparison with brain perfusion SPECT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:906–11 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3780 pmid:24263694
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Musiek ES,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Korczykowski M, et al
    . Direct comparison of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2012;8:51–59 doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.06.003 pmid:22018493
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Raji CA,
    2. Lee C,
    3. Lopez OL, et al
    . Initial experience in using continuous arterial spin-labeled MR imaging for early detection of Alzheimer disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:847–55 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1955 pmid:20075093
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Wang DJ,
    2. Alger JR,
    3. Qiao JX, et al
    ; UCLA Stroke Investigators. Multi-delay multi-parametric arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI in acute ischemic stroke: comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced perfusion imaging. Neuroimage Clin 2013;3:1–7 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2013.06.017 pmid:24159561
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kuschinsky W
    . Coupling of function, metabolism, and blood flow in the brain. Neurosurg Rev 1991;14:163–68 doi:10.1007/BF00310651 pmid:1944930
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received September 15, 2016.
  • Accepted after revision March 24, 2017.
  • © 2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 38 (8)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 38, Issue 8
1 Aug 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Head-to-Head Visual Comparison between Brain Perfusion SPECT and Arterial Spin-Labeling MRI with Different Postlabeling Delays in Alzheimer Disease
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
T. Kaneta, O. Katsuse, T. Hirano, M. Ogawa, K. Yoshida, T. Odawara, Y. Hirayasu, T. Inoue
Head-to-Head Visual Comparison between Brain Perfusion SPECT and Arterial Spin-Labeling MRI with Different Postlabeling Delays in Alzheimer Disease
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2017, 38 (8) 1562-1568; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5238

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Head-to-Head Visual Comparison between Brain Perfusion SPECT and Arterial Spin-Labeling MRI with Different Postlabeling Delays in Alzheimer Disease
T. Kaneta, O. Katsuse, T. Hirano, M. Ogawa, K. Yoshida, T. Odawara, Y. Hirayasu, T. Inoue
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2017, 38 (8) 1562-1568; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5238
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref (9)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Arterial Transit Time‐Based Multidelay Combination Strategy Improves Arterial Spin Labeling Cerebral Blood Flow Measurement Accuracy in Severe Steno‐Occlusive Diseases
    Shiori Amemiya, Yusuke Watanabe, Naoyuki Takei, Tsuyoshi Ueyama, Satoru Miyawaki, Satoshi Koizumi, Seiji Kato, Hidemasa Takao, Osamu Abe, Nobuhito Saito
    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2022 55 1
  • Application of a 3D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI scan combined with a postlabeling delay value in the diagnosis of neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy
    Shilong Tang, Xianfan Liu, Ling He, Bo Liu, Bin Qin, Chuan Feng, Xi Chen
    PLOS ONE 2019 14 7
  • Three-dimensional pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeling and susceptibility-weighted imaging associated with clinical progression in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer&#039;s disease
    Qingling Huang, Xuan Cao, Xue Chai, Xiao Wang, Ligang Xu, Chaoyong Xiao
    Medicine 2019 98 23
  • Application of Postlabeling Delay Time in 3-Dimensional Pseudocontinuous Arterial Spin-Labeled Perfusion Imaging in Normal Children
    Shilong Tang, Xianfan Liu, Ling He, Bo Liu, Bin Qin, Chuan Feng
    Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 2019 43 5
  • Impact of the inversion time on regional brain perfusion estimation with clinical arterial spin labeling protocols
    Francesco Sanvito, Fulvia Palesi, Elisa Rognone, Leonardo Barzaghi, Ludovica Pasca, Giancarlo Germani, Valentina De Giorgis, Renato Borgatti, Claudia A. M. Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott, Anna Pichiecchio
    Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine 2022 35 3
  • A diagnostic index based on pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and T1-mapping improves efficacy in discriminating Alzheimer’s disease from normal cognition
    Xiaonan Wang, Di Wang, Xinyang Li, Wenqi Wang, Ping Gao, Baohui Lou, Josef Pfeuffer, Xianchang Zhang, Jinxia Zhu, Chunmei Li, Min Chen
    Frontiers in Neuroscience 2022 16
  • Changes of brain activity during a functional magnetic resonance imaging stroop task study: Effect of Chinese herbal formula in Alzheimer’s disease
    Cuiru Lin, Zhen Zhou, Jiachun Xu, Qiang Li, Jiakui Guo, Miaomiao Long, Di Wu, Yulian Zhang
    European Journal of Integrative Medicine 2017 16
  • Acute Hemianopia Associated With Nonketotic Hyperglycemia: A Case Report With Advanced Neuroimaging Findings
    Honami Tanifuji, Kouhei Kamiya, Genki Sato, Arisa Yoshida, Masaaki Hori
    Cureus 2025
  • Perfusion Imaging and Inflammation Biomarkers Provide Complementary Information in Alzheimer’s Disease
    Sofia Michopoulou, Angus Prosser, John Dickson, Matthew Guy, Jessica L. Teeling, Christopher Kipps, Robert Perneczky
    Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 2023 96 3

More in this TOC Section

  • Diagnostic Neuroradiology of Monoclonal Antibodies
  • Cerebral ADC Changes in Fabry Disease
  • ML for Glioma Molecular Subtype Prediction
Show more Adult Brain

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editors Choice
  • Fellow Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • Special Collections

Resources

  • News and Updates
  • Turn around Times
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Policies
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Submit a Case
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcast
  • AJNR SCANtastic
  • Video Articles

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Advertise with us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Permissions
  • Terms and Conditions

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire