BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PCT postprocessing commonly uses either the MS or a variant of the DC approach for modeling of voxel-based time-attenuation curves. There is an ongoing discussion about the respective merits and limitations of both methods, frequently on the basis of theoretic reasoning or simulated data. We performed a qualitative and quantitative comparison of DC and MS by using identical source datasets and preprocessing parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the PCT data of 50 patients with acute ischemic stroke, color maps of CBF, CBV, and various temporal parameters were calculated with software implementing both DC and MS algorithms. Color maps were qualitatively categorized. Quantitative region-of-interest-based measurements were made in nonischemic GM and WM, suspected penumbra, and suspected infarction core. Qualitative results, quantitative results, and PCT lesion sizes from DC and MS were statistically compared. RESULTS: CBF and CBV color maps based on DC and MS were of comparably high quality. Quantitative CBF and CBV values calculated by DC and MS were within the same range in nonischemic regions. In suspected penumbra regions, average CBF(DC) was lower than CBF(MS). In suspected infarction core regions, average CBV(DC) was similar to CBV(MS). Using adapted tissue-at-risk/nonviable-tissue thresholds, we found excellent correlation of DC and MS lesion sizes. CONCLUSIONS: DC and MS yielded comparable qualitative and quantitative results. Lesion sizes indicated by DC and MS showed excellent agreement when using adapted thresholds. In all cases, the same therapy decision would have been made.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PCT postprocessing commonly uses either the MS or a variant of the DC approach for modeling of voxel-based time-attenuation curves. There is an ongoing discussion about the respective merits and limitations of both methods, frequently on the basis of theoretic reasoning or simulated data. We performed a qualitative and quantitative comparison of DC and MS by using identical source datasets and preprocessing parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the PCT data of 50 patients with acute ischemic stroke, color maps of CBF, CBV, and various temporal parameters were calculated with software implementing both DC and MS algorithms. Color maps were qualitatively categorized. Quantitative region-of-interest-based measurements were made in nonischemic GM and WM, suspected penumbra, and suspected infarction core. Qualitative results, quantitative results, and PCT lesion sizes from DC and MS were statistically compared. RESULTS: CBF and CBV color maps based on DC and MS were of comparably high quality. Quantitative CBF and CBV values calculated by DC and MS were within the same range in nonischemic regions. In suspected penumbra regions, average CBF(DC) was lower than CBF(MS). In suspected infarction core regions, average CBV(DC) was similar to CBV(MS). Using adapted tissue-at-risk/nonviable-tissue thresholds, we found excellent correlation of DC and MS lesion sizes. CONCLUSIONS: DC and MS yielded comparable qualitative and quantitative results. Lesion sizes indicated by DC and MS showed excellent agreement when using adapted thresholds. In all cases, the same therapy decision would have been made.
Authors: Max Wintermark; Nancy J Fischbein; Wade S Smith; Nerissa U Ko; Marcel Quist; William P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Shuji Arakawa; Peter M Wright; Masatoshi Koga; Thanh G Phan; David C Reutens; Indra Lim; Marveyles R Gunawan; Henry Ma; Nilupul Perera; John Ly; Jorge Zavala; Gregory Fitt; Geoffery A Donnan Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: B D Murphy; A J Fox; D H Lee; D J Sahlas; S E Black; M J Hogan; S B Coutts; A M Demchuk; M Goyal; R I Aviv; S Symons; I B Gulka; V Beletsky; D Pelz; V Hachinski; R Chan; T-Y Lee Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-06-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M Wintermark; R Meuli; P Browaeys; M Reichhart; J Bogousslavsky; P Schnyder; P Michel Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Max Wintermark; Adam E Flanders; Birgitta Velthuis; Reto Meuli; Maarten van Leeuwen; Dorit Goldsher; Carissa Pineda; Joaquin Serena; Irene van der Schaaf; Annet Waaijer; James Anderson; Gary Nesbit; Igal Gabriely; Victoria Medina; Ana Quiles; Scott Pohlman; Marcel Quist; Pierre Schnyder; Julien Bogousslavsky; William P Dillon; Salvador Pedraza Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-03-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ke Lin; Kinh G Do; Phat Ong; Maksim Shapiro; James S Babb; Keith A Siller; Bidyut K Pramanik Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Bruno P Soares; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Joerg Bredno; SuChun Cheng; Sumail Bhogal; William P Dillon; Max Wintermark Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Edward D Greenberg; Y Pierre Gobin; Howard Riina; Carl E Johnson; Apostolos J Tsiouris; Joseph Comunale; Pina C Sanelli Journal: Imaging Med Date: 2011-06-01
Authors: Xiao Kun Fang; Qian Qian Ni; U Joseph Schoepf; Chang Sheng Zhou; Guo Zhong Chen; Song Luo; Stephen R Fuller; Carlo N De Cecco; Long Jiang Zhang; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher D d'Esterre; Richard I Aviv; Laura Morrison; Enrico Fainardi; Ting Yim Lee Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Marcin Sawicki; R Bohatyrewicz; K Safranow; A Walecka; J Walecki; O Rowinski; J Solek-Pastuszka; Z Czajkowski; M Guzinski; M Burzynska; J Wojczal Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Ahmed E Othman; Saif Afat; Omid Nikoubashman; Marguerite Müller; Gerrit Alexander Schubert; Georg Bier; Marc A Brockmann; Martin Wiesmann; Carolin Brockmann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 2.804