Background: Phase contrast (PC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is clinically used to quantify flow. The quantification accuracy is diminished by background phase errors. Image-based background phase correction algorithms are commercially available, but their accuracy is still under evaluation. Here, we validate a recently developed non-linear phase contrast correction (nPCcor) algorithm that includes automatic failure mode classification in a large single-vendor multi-scanner retrospective study. Methods: Three hundred forty-six through-plane PC images at the aortic valve (AAo) and pulmonary artery (PA) were acquired on three different GE HealthCare 1.5T clinical MRI scanners. Each PC scan was repeated on a static phantom, and the static phantom-corrected PC series was considered as the reference standard. Two image-based static tissue background phase corrections were applied on each PC series: a linear and the nPCcor. Accuracy of nPCcor was studied by comparing the net flow in the vessel of interest for the uncorrected, linear-corrected, and nPCcor images with respect to the static phantom-corrected series. Accuracy was defined as a difference in net flow ≤10% with respect to the static phantom corrected net flow. Results: Flow measurements using the nPCcor images after nPCcor automatic classification were found to be accurate for 87% (281/323) of PC datasets, 6% and 17% better than using uncorrected and linear-corrected (p<0.05), respectively. Most importantly, nPCcor was able to correctly identify 70% (16/23) PC cases likely to provide inaccurate flow measurements. Flow measurements after nPCcor in the scanner with the largest phase offsets were found to be accurate for 74% (62/84) of PC datasets, 22% better than using the uncorrected images (p<0.05). nPCcor correction was statistically significant more accurate than linear correction for all scanners (p<0.05). The percentage of regurgitation reclassification of ≥1 category decreased to 8% (8/323) after nPCcor correction, 3% better than for uncorrected images. Conclusion: nPCcor with automatic failure mode evaluation improved accuracy with respect to no correction and linear correction and successfully identified PC scans that are likely to result in unreliable flow measurements. nPCcor performance and phase offset errors varied greatly among scanners using the same CMR protocol. nPCcor has higher impact in scanners exhibiting the largest background phase offsets.

Both inflow and the partial volume effect (PVE) are sources of error when measuring the arterial input function (AIF) in dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. This is relevant, as errors in the AIF can propagate into pharmacokinetic parameter estimations from the DCE data. A method was introduced for flow correction by estimating and compensating the number of the perceived pulse of spins during inflow. We hypothesized that the PVE has an impact on concentration–time curves similar to inflow. Therefore, we aimed to study the efficiency of this method to compensate for both effects simultaneously. We first simulated an AIF with different levels of inflow and PVE contamination. The peak, full width at half-maximum (FWHM), and area under curve (AUC) of the reconstructed AIFs were compared with the true (simulated) AIF. In clinical data, the PVE was included in AIFs artificially by averaging the signal in voxels surrounding a manually selected point in an artery. Subsequently, the artificial partial volume AIFs were corrected and compared with the AIF from the selected point. Additionally, corrected AIFs from the internal carotid artery (ICA), the middle cerebral artery (MCA), and the venous output function (VOF) estimated from the superior sagittal sinus (SSS) were compared. As such, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the correction method with different levels of inflow and PVE in clinical data. The simulation data demonstrated that the corrected AIFs had only marginal bias in peak value, FWHM, and AUC. Also, the algorithm yielded highly correlated reconstructed curves over increasingly larger neighbourhoods surrounding selected arterial points in clinical data. Furthermore, AIFs measured from the ICA and MCA produced similar peak height and FWHM, whereas a significantly larger peak and lower FWHM was found compared with the VOF. Our findings indicate that the proposed method has high potential to compensate for PVE and inflow simultaneously. The corrected AIFs could thereby provide a stable input source for DCE analysis.

The arterial input function (AIF) plays a crucial role in estimating quantitative perfusion properties from dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI. An important issue, however, is that measuring the AIF in absolute contrast-agent concentrations is challenging, due to uncertainty in relation to the measured (Formula presented.) -weighted signal, signal depletion at high concentration, and partial-volume effects. A potential solution could be to derive the AIF from separately acquired dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI data. We aim to compare the AIF determined from DCE MRI with the AIF from DSC MRI, and estimated perfusion coefficients derived from DSC data using a DCE-driven AIF with perfusion coefficients determined using a DSC-based AIF. AIFs were manually selected in branches of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) in both DCE and DSC data in each patient. In addition, a semi-automatic AIF-selection algorithm was applied to the DSC data. The amplitude and full width at half-maximum of the AIFs were compared statistically using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, applying a 0.05 significance level. Cerebral blood flow (CBF) was derived with different AIF approaches and compared further. The results showed that the AIFs extracted from DSC scans yielded highly variable peaks across arteries within the same patient. The semi-automatic DSC–AIF had significantly narrower width compared with the manual AIFs, and a significantly larger peak than the manual DSC–AIF. Additionally, the DCE-based AIF provided a more stable measurement of relative CBF and absolute CBF values estimated with DCE–AIFs that were compatible with previously reported values. In conclusion, DCE-based AIFs were reproduced significantly better across vessels, showed more realistic profiles, and delivered more stable and reasonable CBF measurements. The DCE–AIF can, therefore, be considered as an alternative AIF source for quantitative perfusion estimations in DSC MRI.