BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatically identifying carotid plaque composition using MR imaging remains a challenging task in vivo. The purpose of our study was to compare the detection and quantification of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaque components based on in vivo MR imaging data using manual and automated segmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients from a multicenter study were split into a training group (20 patients) and a study group (40 patients). Each MR imaging study consisted of 4 high-resolution carotid wall sequences (T1, T2, PDw, TOF). Manual segmentation was performed by delineation of the vessel wall and different plaque components. Automated segmentation was performed in the study group by a supervised classifier trained on images from the training group of patients. RESULTS: For the detection of plaque components, the agreement between the visual and automated analysis was moderate for calcifications (κ = 0.59, CI 95% [0.36-0.82]) and good for hemorrhage (0.65 [0.42-0.88]) and lipids (0.65 [0.03-1.27]). For quantification of plaque volumes, the intraclass correlation was high for hemorrhage (0.80 [0.54-0.92]) and fibrous tissue (0.80 [0.65-0.89]), good for lipids (0.65 [0.43-0.80]), and poor for calcifications. CONCLUSIONS: In 40 patients with carotid stenosis, our results indicated that it was possible to automatically detect carotid plaque components with substantial or good agreement with visual identification, and that the volumes obtained manually and automatically were reasonably consistent for hemorrhage and lipids but not for calcium.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatically identifying carotid plaque composition using MR imaging remains a challenging task in vivo. The purpose of our study was to compare the detection and quantification of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaque components based on in vivo MR imaging data using manual and automated segmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients from a multicenter study were split into a training group (20 patients) and a study group (40 patients). Each MR imaging study consisted of 4 high-resolution carotid wall sequences (T1, T2, PDw, TOF). Manual segmentation was performed by delineation of the vessel wall and different plaque components. Automated segmentation was performed in the study group by a supervised classifier trained on images from the training group of patients. RESULTS: For the detection of plaque components, the agreement between the visual and automated analysis was moderate for calcifications (κ = 0.59, CI 95% [0.36-0.82]) and good for hemorrhage (0.65 [0.42-0.88]) and lipids (0.65 [0.03-1.27]). For quantification of plaque volumes, the intraclass correlation was high for hemorrhage (0.80 [0.54-0.92]) and fibrous tissue (0.80 [0.65-0.89]), good for lipids (0.65 [0.43-0.80]), and poor for calcifications. CONCLUSIONS: In 40 patients with carotid stenosis, our results indicated that it was possible to automatically detect carotid plaque components with substantial or good agreement with visual identification, and that the volumes obtained manually and automatically were reasonably consistent for hemorrhage and lipids but not for calcium.
Authors: C Oppenheim; E Touzé; X Leclerc; E Schmitt; F Bonneville; P Vandermarcq; E Gerardin; J F Toussaint; J L Mas; J F Méder Journal: J Radiol Date: 2008-03
Authors: Norihide Takaya; Chun Yuan; Baocheng Chu; Tobias Saam; Hunter Underhill; Jianming Cai; Nam Tran; Nayak L Polissar; Carol Isaac; Marina S Ferguson; Gwenn A Garden; Steven C Cramer; Kenneth R Maravilla; Beverly Hashimoto; Thomas S Hatsukami Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-02-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Baocheng Chu; Annette Kampschulte; Marina S Ferguson; William S Kerwin; Vasily L Yarnykh; Kevin D O'Brien; Nayak L Polissar; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Karim Lekadir; Alfiia Galimzianova; Angels Betriu; Maria Del Mar Vila; Laura Igual; Daniel L Rubin; Elvira Fernandez; Petia Radeva; Sandy Napel Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Taku Yoneyama; Jie Sun; Daniel S Hippe; Niranjan Balu; Dongxiang Xu; William S Kerwin; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Malachi Sheahan; Xiaonan Ma; David Paik; Nancy A Obuchowski; Samantha St Pierre; William P Newman; Guenevere Rae; Eric S Perlman; Michael Rosol; James C Keith; Andrew J Buckler Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tao Wan; Anant Madabhushi; Alkystis Phinikaridou; James A Hamilton; Ning Hua; Tuan Pham; Jovanna Danagoulian; Ross Kleiman; Andrew J Buckler Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Shan Gao; Ronald van 't Klooster; Diederik F van Wijk; Aart J Nederveen; Boudewijn P F Lelieveldt; Rob J van der Geest Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Arna van Engelen; Wiro J Niessen; Stefan Klein; Harald C Groen; Hence J M Verhagen; Jolanda J Wentzel; Aad van der Lugt; Marleen de Bruijne Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Loek P Smits; Diederik F van Wijk; Raphael Duivenvoorden; Dongxiang Xu; Chun Yuan; Erik S Stroes; Aart J Nederveen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Chengcheng Zhu; Martin J Graves; Umar Sadat; Victoria E Young; Jonathan H Gillard; Andrew J Patterson Journal: Magn Reson Med Sci Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 2.471