BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The choice of arterial input function (AIF) can have a profound effect on the blood flow maps generated on perfusion-weighted MR imaging (PWI). Automation of this process could substantially reduce operator dependency, increase consistency, and accelerate PWI analysis. We created an automated AIF identification program (auto-AIF) and validated its performance against conventional manual methods. METHODS: We compared the auto-AIF against manually derived AIFs from multisection PWIs of 22 patients with stroke. Time to peak, curve width, curve height, and voxel location determined with both techniques were compared. The time to maximum of the tissue residue function (Tmax) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) were computed on a per-pixel basis for each AIF. Spatial patterns of 528 map pairs were compared by computing Pearson correlation coefficients between maps generated with each method. RESULTS: All auto-AIF-derived PWI map parameters, including bolus peak, width, and height, were consistently superior to manually derived ones. Reproducibility of the auto-AIF-based Tmax maps was excellent (r = 1.0). Paired Tmax maps and CBF maps from both techniques were well correlated (r = 0.82). Time to identify the AIF was significantly shorter with the auto-AIF method than with the manual technique (mean difference, 72 seconds; 95% confidence interval: 54, 89 seconds). CONCLUSION: An automated program that identifies the AIF is feasible and can create reliably reproducible and accurate Tmax and CBF maps. Automation of this process could reduce PWI analysis time and increase consistency and may allow for more effective use of PWI in the evaluation of acute stroke.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The choice of arterial input function (AIF) can have a profound effect on the blood flow maps generated on perfusion-weighted MR imaging (PWI). Automation of this process could substantially reduce operator dependency, increase consistency, and accelerate PWI analysis. We created an automated AIF identification program (auto-AIF) and validated its performance against conventional manual methods. METHODS: We compared the auto-AIF against manually derived AIFs from multisection PWIs of 22 patients with stroke. Time to peak, curve width, curve height, and voxel location determined with both techniques were compared. The time to maximum of the tissue residue function (Tmax) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) were computed on a per-pixel basis for each AIF. Spatial patterns of 528 map pairs were compared by computing Pearson correlation coefficients between maps generated with each method. RESULTS: All auto-AIF-derived PWI map parameters, including bolus peak, width, and height, were consistently superior to manually derived ones. Reproducibility of the auto-AIF-based Tmax maps was excellent (r = 1.0). Paired Tmax maps and CBF maps from both techniques were well correlated (r = 0.82). Time to identify the AIF was significantly shorter with the auto-AIF method than with the manual technique (mean difference, 72 seconds; 95% confidence interval: 54, 89 seconds). CONCLUSION: An automated program that identifies the AIF is feasible and can create reliably reproducible and accurate Tmax and CBF maps. Automation of this process could reduce PWI analysis time and increase consistency and may allow for more effective use of PWI in the evaluation of acute stroke.
Authors: D J Lythgoe; L Ostergaard; S C William; A Cluckie; M Buxton-Thomas; A Simmons; H S Markus Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: A Villringer; B R Rosen; J W Belliveau; J L Ackerman; R B Lauffer; R B Buxton; Y S Chao; V J Wedeen; T J Brady Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1988-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: R Wirestam; L Andersson; L Ostergaard; M Bolling; J P Aunola; A Lindgren; B Geijer; S Holtås; F Ståhlberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: A G Sorensen; F S Buonanno; R G Gonzalez; L H Schwamm; M H Lev; F R Huang-Hellinger; T G Reese; R M Weisskoff; T L Davis; N Suwanwela; U Can; J A Moreira; W A Copen; R B Look; S P Finklestein; B R Rosen; W J Koroshetz Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vincent N Thijs; Diederik M Somford; Roland Bammer; Wim Robberecht; Michael E Moseley; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-12-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Thies H Jochimsen; Rexford D Newbould; Stefan T Skare; David B Clayton; Gregory W Albers; Michael E Moseley; Roland Bammer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Edwin Bennink; Alan J Riordan; Alexander D Horsch; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Birgitta K Velthuis; Hugo W de Jong Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Nishant K Mishra; Søren Christensen; Anke Wouters; Bruce C V Campbell; Matus Straka; Michael Mlynash; Stephanie Kemp; Carlo W Cereda; Roland Bammer; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Greg Zaharchuk; Roland Bammer; Matus Straka; Rexford D Newbould; Jarrett Rosenberg; Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael Mlynash; Maarten G Lansberg; Neil E Schwartz; Michael M Marks; Gregory W Albers; Michael E Moseley Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M Mlynash; J-M Olivot; D C Tong; M G Lansberg; I Eyngorn; S Kemp; M E Moseley; G W Albers Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Rexford D Newbould; Stefan T Skare; Thies H Jochimsen; Marcus T Alley; Michael E Moseley; Gregory W Albers; Roland Bammer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.737