Cargando…

A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction

Objective: To compare how at-risk tissue and core infarction were defined in two major trials that tested the use of MRI in selecting acute stroke patients for endovascular recanalization therapy. Methods: MRIs from 12 patients evaluated for possible endovascular therapy were processed using the met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leigh, Richard, Urrutia, Victor C., Llinas, Rafael H., Gottesman, Rebecca F., Krakauer, John W., Hillis, Argye E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4153314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25232348
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2014.00155
_version_ 1782333268139442176
author Leigh, Richard
Urrutia, Victor C.
Llinas, Rafael H.
Gottesman, Rebecca F.
Krakauer, John W.
Hillis, Argye E.
author_facet Leigh, Richard
Urrutia, Victor C.
Llinas, Rafael H.
Gottesman, Rebecca F.
Krakauer, John W.
Hillis, Argye E.
author_sort Leigh, Richard
collection PubMed
description Objective: To compare how at-risk tissue and core infarction were defined in two major trials that tested the use of MRI in selecting acute stroke patients for endovascular recanalization therapy. Methods: MRIs from 12 patients evaluated for possible endovascular therapy were processed using the methods published from two major trials, MR RESCUE and DEFUSE 2. Specifically, volumes of at-risk tissue and core infarction were generated from each patient’s MRI. MRIs were then classified as whether or not they met criteria for salvageable tissue: “penumbral pattern” for MR RESCUE and/or “target profile” for DEFUSE 2 as defined by each trial. Results: Volumes of at-risk tissue measured by the two definitions were correlated (p = 0.017) while the volumes of core infarct were not (p = 0.059). The volume of at-risk tissue was consistently larger when defined by the penumbral pattern than the target profile while the volume of core infarct was consistently larger when defined by the target profile than the penumbral pattern. When these volumes were used to classify the MRI scans, 9 out of 12 patients (75%) were classified as having a penumbral pattern, while only 4 out of 12 patients (33%) were classified as having a target profile. Of the 9 patients classified as penumbral pattern, 5 (55%) were classified differently by the target profile. Interpretation: Our analysis found that the MR RESCUE trial defined salvageable tissue in a way that made it more likely for patients be labeled as favorable for treatment. For the cohort of patients examined in this study, had they been enrolled in both trials, most of the patients identified as having salvageable tissue by the MR RESCUE trial would not have been considered to have salvageable tissue in the DEFUSE 2 trial. Caution should be taken in concluding that MRI selection for endovascular therapy is not effective as imaging selection criteria were substantially different between the two trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4153314
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41533142014-09-17 A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction Leigh, Richard Urrutia, Victor C. Llinas, Rafael H. Gottesman, Rebecca F. Krakauer, John W. Hillis, Argye E. Front Neurol Neuroscience Objective: To compare how at-risk tissue and core infarction were defined in two major trials that tested the use of MRI in selecting acute stroke patients for endovascular recanalization therapy. Methods: MRIs from 12 patients evaluated for possible endovascular therapy were processed using the methods published from two major trials, MR RESCUE and DEFUSE 2. Specifically, volumes of at-risk tissue and core infarction were generated from each patient’s MRI. MRIs were then classified as whether or not they met criteria for salvageable tissue: “penumbral pattern” for MR RESCUE and/or “target profile” for DEFUSE 2 as defined by each trial. Results: Volumes of at-risk tissue measured by the two definitions were correlated (p = 0.017) while the volumes of core infarct were not (p = 0.059). The volume of at-risk tissue was consistently larger when defined by the penumbral pattern than the target profile while the volume of core infarct was consistently larger when defined by the target profile than the penumbral pattern. When these volumes were used to classify the MRI scans, 9 out of 12 patients (75%) were classified as having a penumbral pattern, while only 4 out of 12 patients (33%) were classified as having a target profile. Of the 9 patients classified as penumbral pattern, 5 (55%) were classified differently by the target profile. Interpretation: Our analysis found that the MR RESCUE trial defined salvageable tissue in a way that made it more likely for patients be labeled as favorable for treatment. For the cohort of patients examined in this study, had they been enrolled in both trials, most of the patients identified as having salvageable tissue by the MR RESCUE trial would not have been considered to have salvageable tissue in the DEFUSE 2 trial. Caution should be taken in concluding that MRI selection for endovascular therapy is not effective as imaging selection criteria were substantially different between the two trials. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4153314/ /pubmed/25232348 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2014.00155 Text en Copyright © 2014 Leigh, Urrutia, Llinas, Gottesman, Krakauer and Hillis. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Leigh, Richard
Urrutia, Victor C.
Llinas, Rafael H.
Gottesman, Rebecca F.
Krakauer, John W.
Hillis, Argye E.
A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction
title A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction
title_full A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction
title_fullStr A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction
title_short A Comparison of Two Methods for MRI Classification of At-Risk Tissue and Core Infarction
title_sort comparison of two methods for mri classification of at-risk tissue and core infarction
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4153314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25232348
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2014.00155
work_keys_str_mv AT leighrichard acomparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT urrutiavictorc acomparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT llinasrafaelh acomparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT gottesmanrebeccaf acomparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT krakauerjohnw acomparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT hillisargyee acomparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT leighrichard comparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT urrutiavictorc comparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT llinasrafaelh comparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT gottesmanrebeccaf comparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT krakauerjohnw comparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction
AT hillisargyee comparisonoftwomethodsformriclassificationofatrisktissueandcoreinfarction