Cargando…
A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Purpose: Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (P-MRI) is part of the mismatch concept employed for therapy decisions in acute ischemic stroke. Using dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI the time-to-maximum (Tmax) parameter is quite popular, but its inconsistently defined computation, arterial i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6341064/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697166 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01945 |
_version_ | 1783388886251077632 |
---|---|
author | Nasel, Christian Klickovic, Uros Kührer, Heike-Marie Villringer, Kersten Fiebach, Jochen B. Villringer, Arno Moser, Ewald |
author_facet | Nasel, Christian Klickovic, Uros Kührer, Heike-Marie Villringer, Kersten Fiebach, Jochen B. Villringer, Arno Moser, Ewald |
author_sort | Nasel, Christian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (P-MRI) is part of the mismatch concept employed for therapy decisions in acute ischemic stroke. Using dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI the time-to-maximum (Tmax) parameter is quite popular, but its inconsistently defined computation, arterial input function (AIF) selection, and the applied deconvolution method may introduce bias into the assessment. Alternatively, parameter free methods, namely, standardized time-to-peak (stdTTP), z(f)-score, and standardized-z(f) (stdZ) are also available, offering consistent calculation procedures without the need of an AIF or deconvolution. Methods: Tmax was compared to stdTTP, z(f)-, and stdZ to evaluate robustness of infarct volume estimation in 66 patients, using data from two different sites and MR systems (i.e., 1.5T vs. 3T; short TR (= 689 ms) vs. medium TR (= 1,390 ms); bolus dose 0.1 or 0.2 ml/kgBW, respectively). Results: Quality factors (QF) for Tmax were 0.54 ± 0.18 (sensitivity), 0.90 ± 0.06 (specificity), and 0.87 ± 0.05 (accuracy). Though not significantly different, best specificity (0.93 ± 0.05) and accuracy (0.90 ± 0.04) were found for stdTTP with a sensitivity of 0.56 ± 0.17. Other tested parameters performed not significantly worse than Tmax and stdTTP, but absolute values of QFs were slightly lower, except for z(f) showing the highest sensitivity (0.72 ± 0.16). Accordingly, in ROC-analysis testing the parameter performance to predict the final infarct volume, stdTTP and z(f) showed the best performance. The odds for stdTTP to obtain the best prediction of the final infarct size, was 6.42 times higher compared to all other parameters (odds-ratio test; p = 2.2(*)10–16). Conclusion: Based on our results, we suggest to reanalyze data from large cohort studies using the parameters presented here, particularly stdTTP and zf-score, to further increase consistency of perfusion assessment in acute ischemic stroke. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6341064 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63410642019-01-29 A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Nasel, Christian Klickovic, Uros Kührer, Heike-Marie Villringer, Kersten Fiebach, Jochen B. Villringer, Arno Moser, Ewald Front Physiol Physiology Purpose: Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (P-MRI) is part of the mismatch concept employed for therapy decisions in acute ischemic stroke. Using dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI the time-to-maximum (Tmax) parameter is quite popular, but its inconsistently defined computation, arterial input function (AIF) selection, and the applied deconvolution method may introduce bias into the assessment. Alternatively, parameter free methods, namely, standardized time-to-peak (stdTTP), z(f)-score, and standardized-z(f) (stdZ) are also available, offering consistent calculation procedures without the need of an AIF or deconvolution. Methods: Tmax was compared to stdTTP, z(f)-, and stdZ to evaluate robustness of infarct volume estimation in 66 patients, using data from two different sites and MR systems (i.e., 1.5T vs. 3T; short TR (= 689 ms) vs. medium TR (= 1,390 ms); bolus dose 0.1 or 0.2 ml/kgBW, respectively). Results: Quality factors (QF) for Tmax were 0.54 ± 0.18 (sensitivity), 0.90 ± 0.06 (specificity), and 0.87 ± 0.05 (accuracy). Though not significantly different, best specificity (0.93 ± 0.05) and accuracy (0.90 ± 0.04) were found for stdTTP with a sensitivity of 0.56 ± 0.17. Other tested parameters performed not significantly worse than Tmax and stdTTP, but absolute values of QFs were slightly lower, except for z(f) showing the highest sensitivity (0.72 ± 0.16). Accordingly, in ROC-analysis testing the parameter performance to predict the final infarct volume, stdTTP and z(f) showed the best performance. The odds for stdTTP to obtain the best prediction of the final infarct size, was 6.42 times higher compared to all other parameters (odds-ratio test; p = 2.2(*)10–16). Conclusion: Based on our results, we suggest to reanalyze data from large cohort studies using the parameters presented here, particularly stdTTP and zf-score, to further increase consistency of perfusion assessment in acute ischemic stroke. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6341064/ /pubmed/30697166 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01945 Text en Copyright © 2019 Nasel, Klickovic, Kührer, Villringer, Fiebach, Villringer and Moser. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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) and the copyright owner(s) 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 | Physiology Nasel, Christian Klickovic, Uros Kührer, Heike-Marie Villringer, Kersten Fiebach, Jochen B. Villringer, Arno Moser, Ewald A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title | A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_full | A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_fullStr | A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_full_unstemmed | A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_short | A Quantitative Comparison of Clinically Employed Parameters in the Assessment of Acute Cerebral Ischemia Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_sort | quantitative comparison of clinically employed parameters in the assessment of acute cerebral ischemia using dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging |
topic | Physiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6341064/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697166 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01945 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT naselchristian aquantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT klickovicuros aquantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT kuhrerheikemarie aquantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT villringerkersten aquantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT fiebachjochenb aquantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT villringerarno aquantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT moserewald aquantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT naselchristian quantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT klickovicuros quantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT kuhrerheikemarie quantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT villringerkersten quantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT fiebachjochenb quantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT villringerarno quantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging AT moserewald quantitativecomparisonofclinicallyemployedparametersintheassessmentofacutecerebralischemiausingdynamicsusceptibilitycontrastmagneticresonanceimaging |