BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The mismatch between lesions identified in perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging is typically used to identify tissue at risk of infarction in acute stroke. The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of mismatch volumes resulting from different time-to-peak or time-to-maximum estimation techniques used for hypoperfused tissue definition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 50 patients with middle cerebral artery stroke and intracranial vessel occlusion imaged within 6 hours of symptom onset were analyzed. Therefore, 10 different TTP/Tmax techniques and delay thresholds between +2 and +12 seconds were used for calculation of perfusion lesions. Diffusion lesions were semiautomatically segmented and used for mismatch quantification after registration. RESULTS: Mean volumetric differences up to 40 and 100 mL in individual patients were found between the mismatch volumes calculated by the 10 TTP/Tmax estimation techniques for typically used delay thresholds. The application of typical criteria for the identification of patients with a clinically relevant mismatch volume resulted in different mismatch classifications in ≤24% of all cases, depending on the TTP/Tmax estimation method used. CONCLUSIONS: High variations of tissue-at-risk volumes have to be expected when using different TTP/Tmax estimation techniques. An adaption of different techniques by using correction formulas may enable more comparable study results until a standard has been established by agreement.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The mismatch between lesions identified in perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging is typically used to identify tissue at risk of infarction in acute stroke. The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of mismatch volumes resulting from different time-to-peak or time-to-maximum estimation techniques used for hypoperfused tissue definition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 50 patients with middle cerebral artery stroke and intracranial vessel occlusion imaged within 6 hours of symptom onset were analyzed. Therefore, 10 different TTP/Tmax techniques and delay thresholds between +2 and +12 seconds were used for calculation of perfusion lesions. Diffusion lesions were semiautomatically segmented and used for mismatch quantification after registration. RESULTS: Mean volumetric differences up to 40 and 100 mL in individual patients were found between the mismatch volumes calculated by the 10 TTP/Tmax estimation techniques for typically used delay thresholds. The application of typical criteria for the identification of patients with a clinically relevant mismatch volume resulted in different mismatch classifications in ≤24% of all cases, depending on the TTP/Tmax estimation method used. CONCLUSIONS: High variations of tissue-at-risk volumes have to be expected when using different TTP/Tmax estimation techniques. An adaption of different techniques by using correction formulas may enable more comparable study results until a standard has been established by agreement.
Authors: Pamela W Schaefer; George J Hunter; Julian He; Leena M Hamberg; A Gregory Sorensen; Lee H Schwamm; Walter J Koroshetz; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Mark W Parsons; Christopher Levi; Kenneth S Butcher; Andre Peeters; P Alan Barber; Christopher Bladin; Deidre A De Silva; Graham Byrnes; Jonathan B Chalk; John N Fink; Thomas E Kimber; David Schultz; Peter J Hand; Judith Frayne; Graeme Hankey; Keith Muir; Richard Gerraty; Brian M Tress; Patricia M Desmond Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Werner Hacke; Anthony J Furlan; Yasir Al-Rawi; Antoni Davalos; Jochen B Fiebach; Franz Gruber; Markku Kaste; Leslie J Lipka; Salvador Pedraza; Peter A Ringleb; Howard A Rowley; Dietmar Schneider; Lee H Schwamm; Joaquin Serena Leal; Mariola Söhngen; Phil A Teal; Karin Wilhelm-Ogunbiyi; Max Wintermark; Steven Warach Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael Mlynash; Vincent N Thijs; Stephanie Kemp; Maarten G Lansberg; Lawrence Wechsler; Roland Bammer; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Richard McKinley; Levin Häni; Jan Gralla; M El-Koussy; S Bauer; M Arnold; U Fischer; S Jung; Kaspar Mattmann; Mauricio Reyes; Roland Wiest Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Bjoern H Menze; Heinz Handels; Mauricio Reyes; Oskar Maier; Janina von der Gablentz; Levin Ḧani; Mattias P Heinrich; Matthias Liebrand; Stefan Winzeck; Abdul Basit; Paul Bentley; Liang Chen; Daan Christiaens; Francis Dutil; Karl Egger; Chaolu Feng; Ben Glocker; Michael Götz; Tom Haeck; Hanna-Leena Halme; Mohammad Havaei; Khan M Iftekharuddin; Pierre-Marc Jodoin; Konstantinos Kamnitsas; Elias Kellner; Antti Korvenoja; Hugo Larochelle; Christian Ledig; Jia-Hong Lee; Frederik Maes; Qaiser Mahmood; Klaus H Maier-Hein; Richard McKinley; John Muschelli; Chris Pal; Linmin Pei; Janaki Raman Rangarajan; Syed M S Reza; David Robben; Daniel Rueckert; Eero Salli; Paul Suetens; Ching-Wei Wang; Matthias Wilms; Jan S Kirschke; Ulrike M Kr Amer; Thomas F Münte; Peter Schramm; Roland Wiest Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Jordi Borst; Henk A Marquering; Ludo F M Beenen; Olvert A Berkhemer; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Alan J Riordan; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.240