Purpose To compare cerebral blood flow (CBF) and cerebrovascular reserve (CVR) quantification from Turbo‐QUASAR (quantitative signal targeting with alternating radiofrequency labeling of arterial regions) arterial spin labeling (ASL) and single post‐labeling delay pseudo‐continuous ASL (PCASL).

Methods A model‐based method was developed to quantify CBF and arterial transit time (ATT) from Turbo‐QUASAR, including a correction for magnetization transfer effects caused by the repeated labeling (...)

Purpose To compare cerebral blood flow (CBF) and cerebrovascular reserve (CVR) quantification from Turbo‐QUASAR (quantitative signal targeting with alternating radiofrequency labeling of arterial regions) arterial spin labeling (ASL) and single post‐labeling delay pseudo‐continuous ASL (PCASL).

Methods A model‐based method was developed to quantify CBF and arterial transit time (ATT) from Turbo‐QUASAR, including a correction for magnetization transfer effects caused by the repeated labeling pulses. Simulations were performed to assess the accuracy of the model‐based method. Data from an in vivo experiment conducted on a healthy cohort were retrospectively analyzed to compare the CBF and CVR (induced by acetazolamide) measurement from Turbo‐QUASAR and PCASL on the basis of global and regional differences. The quality of the two ASL data sets was examined using the coefficient of variation (CoV).

Results The model‐based method for Turbo‐QUASAR was accurate for CBF estimation (relative error was 8% for signal‐to‐noise ratio = 5) in simulations if the bolus duration was known. In the in vivo experiment, the mean global CVR estimated by Turbo‐QUASAR and PCASL was between 63% and 64% and not significantly different. Although global CBF values of the two ASL techniques were not significantly different, regional CBF differences were found in deep gray matter in both pre‐ and postacetazolamide conditions. The CoV of Turbo‐QUASAR data was significantly higher than PCASL.

Conclusion Both ASL techniques were effective for quantifying CBF and CVR, despite the regional differences observed. Although CBF estimated from Turbo‐QUASAR demonstrated a higher variability than PCASL, Turbo‐QUASAR offers the advantage of being able to measure and control for variation in ATT.