| Literature DB >> 23322329 |
Chang Y Ho1, Sajjad Hussain, Tariq Alam, Iftikhar Ahmad, Isaac C Wu, Darren P O'Neill.
Abstract
This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a single vendor commercially available CT perfusion (CTP) software in predicting stroke. A retrospective analysis on patients presenting with stroke-like symptoms within 6 h with CTP and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed. Lesion maps, which overlays areas of computer-detected abnormally elevated mean transit time (MTT) and decreased cerebral blood volume (CBV), were assessed from a commercially available software package and compared to qualitative interpretation of color maps. Using DWI as the gold standard, parameters of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Point biserial correlation was performed to assess for relationship of lesion size to a true positive result. Sixty-five patients (41 females and 24 males, age range 22-92 years, mean 57) were included in the study. Twenty-two (34 %) had infarcts on DWI. Sensitivity (83 vs. 70 %), specificity (21 vs. 69 %), negative predictive value (77 vs. 84 %), and positive predictive value (29 vs. 50 %) for lesion maps were contrasted to qualitative interpretation of perfusion color maps, respectively. By using the lesion maps to exclude lesions detected qualitatively on color maps, specificity improved (80 %). Point biserial correlation for computer-generated lesions (R pb = 0.46, p < 0.0001) and lesions detected qualitatively (R pb = 0.32, p = 0.0016) demonstrated positive correlation between size and infarction. Seventy-three percent (p = 0.018) of lesions which demonstrated an increasing size from CBV, cerebral blood flow, to MTT/time to peak were true positive. Used in isolation, computer-generated lesion maps in CTP provide limited diagnostic utility in predicting infarct, due to their inherently low specificity. However, when used in conjunction with qualitative perfusion color map assessment, the lesion maps can help improve specificity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23322329 PMCID: PMC3661911 DOI: 10.1007/s10140-012-1102-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Radiol ISSN: 1070-3004
Fig. 1Examples of excluded lesions. a Lesions within areas of beam hardening (small arrows). b Lesions not projecting over the brain parenchyma. Vascular structures (small arrows) and choroid plexus (large arrow)
Fig. 2Lesion classification. a Ischemic lesions (green, large arrow) representing areas of elevated MTT and normal CBV. Infarct lesions (red, small arrow) representing areas of elevated MTT and reduced CBV. b Mixed lesions contained both areas of ischemia and infarct, the so-called “infarct core and ischemic penumbra” (large arrow)
Fig. 3Four contiguous axial images demonstrating a large region of infarct core with ischemic penumbra. The areas of these contiguous lesions are summated into one larger lesion
Fig. 4Sixty-five-year-old male presenting with slurred speech and facial droop. a Perfusion maps demonstrating a perfusion deficit (open arrows) with increasing areas from CBV to CBF to MTT/TTP. The corresponding computer-generated lesion map shows a mixed lesion (closed arrow). b MRI DWI and ADC map performed 4 h later demonstrate an area of decreased diffusion indicating acute infarct matching the area of decreased CBV on CT perfusion
Clinical presentation of included patients presenting with stroke-like symptoms
| Hemiparesis | 29 | Dysarthria | 3 |
| Numbness and confusion | 10 | Homonymous hemianopsia | 1 |
| Facial droop | 9 | ||
| Aphasia | 8 | ||
| Generalized weakness | 5 |
Diagnostic accuracy for computer-generated lesion maps, qualitative color map analysis alone, and qualitative analysis in conjunction with computer-generated lesion maps to exclude areas not detected on the latter
| Computer-generated lesion maps (%) | Qualitative analysis (%) | Qualitative analysis and computer lesion maps (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study sensitivity | 83 (0.95 CI 58–96) | 70 (0.95 CI 46–87) | 67 (0.95 CI 43–85) |
| Study specificity | 21 (0.95 CI 11–36) | 69 (0.95 CI 53–81) | 80 (0.95 CI 64–90) |
| Negative predictive value | 77 (0.95 CI 46–94) | 84 (0.95 CI 67–93) | 83 (0.95 CI 68–92) |
| Positive predictive value | 29 (0.95 CI 18–43) | 50 (0.95 CI 31–69) | 61 (0.95 CI 39–80) |
CI confidence interval
Lesion categorization for computer-generated maps and positive predictive values, and 100 ml was chosen as an arbitrary cutoff value
| Ischemic lesions | Lesions ≥ 100 ml |
|
|
|
| PPV = 6 % | PPV = 70 % |
| Infarct only lesions | Lesions ≤ 100 ml |
|
|
|
| PPV = 0 % | PPV = 6 % |
| Mixed (ischemic and infarct) | |
|
| |
| PPV = 12 % |
Fig. 5Scatter plot for all lesions meeting inclusion criteria on computer-generated lesion maps
Mean and range of the cross-sectional area of true and false positive lesions with point biserial coefficients
|
| False positive mean (range), ml | True positive mean (range), ml | Point biserial coefficient ( | Two-tailed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computer-generated lesions | 215 | 12 (0.7–190) | 160 (3.3–861) | 0.46 | <0.0001 |
| All lesions (qualitative) | 91 | 90 (4.0–623) | 317 (6.4–1368) | 0.32 | 0.0016 |
| CBV | 13 | 21 (6.3–47) | 173 (6.4–880) | 0.33 | 0.27 |
| CBF | 19 | 66 (5.6–356) | 246 (9.4–1105) | 0.31 | 0.19 |
| MTT | 29 | 109 (4.0–623) | 390 (21–1368) | 0.35 | 0.06 |
| TTP | 30 | 110 (5.6–587) | 371 (18–1318) | 0.35 | 0.06 |
Diagnostic accuracy for perfusion parameters for qualitative interpretation before and after excluding lesions not found on the computer-generated lesion maps
| Qualitative evaluation only (%) | Qualitative analysis and computer lesion maps (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| CBV | ||
| Study sensitivity | 30 (0.95 CI 14–53) | 30 (0.95 CI 14–53) |
| Study specificity | 87 (0.95 CI 74–95) | 91 (0.95 CI 79–97) |
| Negative predictive value | 72 (0.95 CI 58–83) | 73 (0.95 CI 60–83) |
| Positive predictive value | 54 (0.95 CI 26–80) | 64 (0.95 CI 32–88) |
| CBF | ||
| Study sensitivity | 48 (0.95 CI 27–69) | 48 (0.95 CI 27–69) |
| Study specificity | 83 (0.95 CI 69–92) | 89 (0.95 CI 76–96) |
| Negative predictive value | 76 (0.95 CI 62–87) | 78 (0.95 CI 64–88) |
| Positive predictive value | 58 (0.95 CI 34–79) | 69 (0.95 CI 41–88) |
| MTT | ||
| Study sensitivity | 61 (0.95 CI 39–80) | 61 (0.95 CI 39–80) |
| Study specificity | 68 (0.95 CI 53–80) | 77 (0.95 CI 62–87) |
| Negative predictive value | 78 (0.95 CI 62–89) | 80 (0.95 CI 65–90) |
| Positive predictive value | 48 (0.95 CI 30–67) | 56 (0.95 CI 35–75) |
| TTP | ||
| Study sensitivity | 61 (0.95 CI 39–80) | 61 (0.95 CI 39–80) |
| Study specificity | 66 (0.95 CI 51–79) | 77 (0.95 CI 62–87) |
| Negative predictive value | 78 (0.95 CI 61–89) | 80 (0.95 CI 65–90) |
| Positive predictive value | 47 (0.95 CI 29–65) | 56 (0.95 CI 35–75) |
Fig. 6Scatter plot for all lesions from qualitative interpretation of color maps