| Literature DB >> 24179749 |
Islem Rekik1, Stéphanie Allassonnière, Trevor K Carpenter, Joanna M Wardlaw.
Abstract
Over the last 15 years, basic thresholding techniques in combination with standard statistical correlation-based data analysis tools have been widely used to investigate different aspects of evolution of acute or subacute to late stage ischemic stroke in both human and animal data. Yet, a wave of biology-dependent and imaging-dependent issues is still untackled pointing towards the key question: "how does an ischemic stroke evolve?" Paving the way for potential answers to this question, both magnetic resonance (MRI) and CT (computed tomography) images have been used to visualize the lesion extent, either with or without spatial distinction between dead and salvageable tissue. Combining diffusion and perfusion imaging modalities may provide the possibility of predicting further tissue recovery or eventual necrosis. Going beyond these basic thresholding techniques, in this critical appraisal, we explore different semi-automatic or fully automatic 2D/3D medical image analysis methods and mathematical models applied to human, animal (rats/rodents) and/or synthetic ischemic stroke to tackle one of the following three problems: (1) segmentation of infarcted and/or salvageable (also called penumbral) tissue, (2) prediction of final ischemic tissue fate (death or recovery) and (3) dynamic simulation of the lesion core and/or penumbra evolution. To highlight the key features in the reviewed segmentation and prediction methods, we propose a common categorization pattern. We also emphasize some key aspects of the methods such as the imaging modalities required to build and test the presented approach, the number of patients/animals or synthetic samples, the use of external user interaction and the methods of assessment (clinical or imaging-based). Furthermore, we investigate how any key difficulties, posed by the evolution of stroke such as swelling or reperfusion, were detected (or not) by each method. In the absence of any imaging-based macroscopic dynamic model applied to ischemic stroke, we have insights into relevant microscopic dynamic models simulating the evolution of brain ischemia in the hope to further promising and challenging 4D imaging-based dynamic models. By depicting the major pitfalls and the advanced aspects of the different reviewed methods, we present an overall critique of their performances and concluded our discussion by suggesting some recommendations for future research work focusing on one or more of the three addressed problems.Entities:
Keywords: Acute/subacute ischemic stroke; Dynamic evolution simulation; Perfusion/diffusion; Prediction; Segmentation
Year: 2012 PMID: 24179749 PMCID: PMC3757728 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2012.10.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1(a) Ischemic penumbra and infarct core at acute time. Red shaded region represents the ischemic penumbra identified using an MTT perfusion map while the blue one represents the infarct core manually delineated on the DWI image. A large area of perfusion/diffusion mismatch is clearly distinguishable. (b) Swelling at acute time of stroke onset observed in a DWI image. A massive swollen infarct occupies most of the MCA territory distorting the right ventricle. (c) An example of the influence of partial reperfusion in penumbra and core evolution patterns. The acute DWI (left) and the acute perfusion TTP map (right) demonstrates the “reverse” mismatch revealing a partial reperfusion where the TTP appears normal in the anterior portion of the MCA territory. (d) Scattered lesion at acute timepoint (3 h). The manually delineated lesion in 3 different axial slices in a DWI image is composed of two topologically separate components. (e) Scattered lesion at a subacute timepoint (6 days). For the same patient showed in (d), the evolution of the spatial boundaries of the manually delineated scattered lesion is shown at a subacute timepoint. (f) Perfusion/diffusion mismatch and the influence of perfusion parameters on the boundary of the visible mismatch. The red contour represents the DWI lesion depicted at an acute timepoint superimposed with both MTT (in blue) and CBF (in green) lesions manually delineated at an acute timepoint.
Fig. 2Overall view of the search strategy and paper categorization method.
Overview of the segmentation methods presented in 25 papers. In the “data” column, two acronyms are used: C(n,h/a): clinical data, n: number of patients, h: human data, and a: animal data. S(n,h/a): synthetic data, n: number of simulations if known, h: human data, and a: animal data. The fifth column “C” denotes the category of the reviewed method: (I) image-based, (P) pixel-classification based, (A) atlas-based, (D) deformable based segmentation category. The sixth column “U” pinpoints whether a user interaction is needed (Y) or (N) not. The next column “TD” highlights whether a training data is required (Y) or (N) not. T: (S) single acquisition timepoint is required or (M) multiple. Sw: (Y) swelling or (N) no swelling accounted for in the identified method. R: reperfusion process is considered (Y) or (N) not. S: segmented area included ischemic lesion or infarct core (I) and the penumbra (P).
| Paper | Basic method principle | Data | Medical modalities | C | U | TD | T | Sw | R | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – Automated, multidimensional 3D histogram-based classification method | C(5,h) S(–) | MR(T2, DWI, ADC) | I | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Automatic histogram and wavelet-based 2-level classification algorithm | C(15,h) | CT | P | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Local statistics | C(1,h) | CT(CBF, CBV, MTT) | I | Y | N | S | N | N | P I | |
| – Semi-automatic thresholding-derived region growing, and decision trees based algorithm | C(40,h) S(5) | MR(T1, T2) | I | Y | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Semi-automatic hidden Markov random fields | C(3,h) S(–) | MR(T2, FLAIR, DWI, ADC, MTT) | P | Y | N | S | N | N | P | |
| – Hierarchical recursive region splitting using rescaling, histogram and distribution measures | C(51,a) | MR(T2) | I | Y | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Nonparametric density estimation approach using edge confidence map | C(15,h) | MR(T2, DWI, ADC) | P | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Multiparameter unsupervised K-means-derived clustering approach | C(22,a) | MR(T1, T2, DWI, ADC) | P | N | N | M | N | N | P I | |
| – An unsupervised vector tissue model with a K-means-derived clustering technique | C(20,a) | MR(T1, T2, DWI) | P | N | N | M | N | N | I | |
| – An unsupervised vector tissue model with a K-means-derived clustering technique | C(10,h) | MR(T1, T2, DWI) | P | N | N | M | N | N | I | |
| – Thresholding-based approach | C(6,h) S(−) | MR(T2, DWI, CBF, CBV, MTT) | I | Y | N | S | N | N | P I | |
| – Multimodal Markov random field (MRF) | C(56,h) | MR(T2, FLAIR, DWI) | P | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Unsupervised adaptive multiscale statistical Bayesian classification and partial volume voxel reclassification | C(20,h) S(−) | MR(DTI) | P | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Unsupervised Mean-shift algorithm | C(19,h) | MR(T2, DWI, ADC) | P | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Anatomical-atlas based segmentation | C(35,h) | CT | A | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Adaptive thresholding algorithm using Markov random fields and iterative conditional modes (ICM) | C(63,h) S(6) | MR(DWI) | P | Y | Y | S | N | N | I | |
| – Symmetry-detection and seeded region-growing algorithm | C(–,h) | CT | I | Y | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Local means and standard deviations intensity-based segmentation | C(–,h) | CT | I | Y | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Probabilistic neural network for an adaptive (two-level) and Gaussian mixture model | C(13,h) | MR(DWI) | P | N | Y | S | N | N | I | |
| – Unsupervised clustering-based tissue scoring method | C(15,a) | MR(T1, T2, DWI, PDWI) | P | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Improved unsupervised clustering-based tissue scoring method | C(9,a) C(15,h) | MR(T1, T2, DWI, PDWI) | P | N | N | S | N | Y | I | |
| – 3D statistical and deformable snake-based model | C(6,h) | MR(T2, FLAIR) | D | Y | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Mean and standard-deviation based segmentation | C(–,h) | CT | I | N | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Unsupervised thresholding-derived joint features extraction based segmentation | C(–,h) | CT | I | Y | N | S | N | N | I | |
| – Nonlinear diffusion scale-space and geometric deformable model with fast marching level sets | C(5,h) | MR(−) | D | Y | N | S | N | N | I |
Overview of ischemic tissue state prediction methods presented in 14 papers. In the “data” column, two acronyms are used: C(n,h/a): clinical data, n: number of patients, h: human data, a: animal data. S(n, h/a): synthetic data, n: number of simulations if known, h: human data, a: animal data. The fifth column “C” denotes the category if the reviewed method: (I) image-based, and (P) pixel-classification based. The sixth column “U” pinpoints whether a user interaction is needed (Y) or (N) not. The next column “TD” highlights whether a training data is required (Y) or (N) not. T: (S) single acquisition timepoint is required or (M) multiple timepoints are required. Sw: (Y) swelling or (N) no swelling accounted for in the identified method. R: reperfusion process is considered (Y) or (N) not. E: (evaluation tools used in the method) (C) clinical-based outcome assessment, (I) image-based outcome assessment; (B) both clinical-based and image-based outcome assessments; (N) none.
| Paper | Basic method principle | Data | Medical modalities | C | U | TD | T | Sw | R | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – Probabilistic neural network for and an adaptive (two-level) Gaussian mixture model | C(13,h) | MR(DWI) | P | N | Y | S | N | N | I | |
| – Multispectral analysis using 2 unsupervised (K-mean, fuzzy C-mean) and supervised (multivariate Gaussian, k-nearest neighbor) clustering techniques. | C(15,a) | MR(T2, ADC, CBF) | P | N | Y | M | N | Y | I | |
| – 3D region-growing technique | C(40,h) | MR(ADC, DWI) | I | Y | Y | S | N | N | I | |
| – Artificial neural network | C(36,a) | MR(T2, ADC, CBF) | P | N | Y | S | N | Y | I | |
| – A generalized linear model (GLM) | C(74,h) | MR(T2, DWI, ADC, CBF, CBV, MTT) | P | N | Y | S | N | N | I | |
| – Parametric normal classifier algorithm | C(29,h) | MR(T2, DTI, ADC, CBF, CBV, MTT) | P | N | Y | S | N | Y | I | |
| – Expectation maximization and k-means clustering algorithm | C(14,h) | MR(T2, DWI, ADC, CBF, MTT) | P | N | Y | S | N | N | I | |
| – Region-growing based model | C(8,h) | MR(DWI, ADC) | I | Y | N | S | N | Y | I | |
| – Kernel spectral regression model trained on a set of locally extracted and normalized cuboids in MR images with known outcome | C(25,h) | MR(Tmax, ADC, FLAIR) | I | N | Y | M | N | N | I | |
| – Clustering technique related to k-means | C(6,a) | MR(T2, ADC, CBF) | P | N | N | M | N | N | I | |
| – Clustering technique related to k-means and generation of probability risk maps | C(6,a) | MR(T2, ADC, CBF) | P | N | Y | M | N | N | I | |
| – Clustering technique related to k-means, generation of probability risk maps and considering spatial susceptibility of infarction | C(6,a) | MR(T2, ADC, CBF) | P | N | Y | S | N | Y | I | |
| – Thresholding and generalized linear model (GLM) algorithms and generating maps of risk of future infarction | C(14,h) | MR(T2, DWI, ADC, CBF, CBV, MTT) | P | N | Y | M | N | Y | I | |
| – Voxel-based generalized linear model (GLM) | C(8,a) | MR(ADC, CBF, CBV, MTT) | P | N | Y | S | N | Y | I |
Overview of dynamic evolution models presented in 8 papers. The acronym Sw denoted swelling, combined with the acronyms: (Y) swelling or (N) no swelling accounted for in the identified method. R: reperfusion process is considered (Y) or (N) not. None of these studies used medical data or have been assessed using imaging or clinical outcome.
| Paper | Basic method principle | Sw | R |
|---|---|---|---|
| – Global phenomenological microscopic dynamic model simulating ischemic stroke evolution. | N | Y | |
| – Mathematical model simulating the influence of blood flow reduction in final infarct size. | N | N | |
| – Mathematical dynamic microscopic model simulating the penumbra evolution. | N | Y | |
| – Mathematical dynamic microscopic model simulating the main mechanisms involved in the penumbra development. | Y | N | |
| – Reaction–diffusion based model simulating the heterogeneous 3D evolution is ischemia. | Y | N | |
| – Physiological based model of ischemic stroke. | Y | N | |
| – Phenomenological dynamic microscopic model simulating the growth of the dead zone in ischemic stroke. | N | N | |
| Louvet et al. (2011) | – Multi-scale reaction–diffusion based numerical model simulating a 2D/3D human ischemic stroke evolution during the first hour. | N | N |
Recommendations for future research work addressing the segmentation of the dead and/or salvageable acute/subacute ischemic tissue, prediction of its final outcome and the simulation of an image-based dynamic evolution of ischemic stroke lesions.
| Category | Segmentation | Prediction | Dynamic evolution simulation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setting clear targets | Segmentation of the ischemic acute/subacute lesion core (supposedly dead) and/or the penumbra (supposedly salvageable), both presumably predefined in an adequate way. | Prediction of the final outcome of the ischemic acute/subacute salvageable tissue (penumbra). | Simulation of an imaging-based dynamic evolution of acute/subacute ischemic stroke (with or without distinction between spatio-temporal behavior of dead and salvageable tissue boundaries). |
| Datasets and imaging modalities | Variability of the ischemic lesions to segment whether when choosing perfusion or diffusion data. The segmentation algorithm can use perfusion and/or diffusion data. | The combination of both perfusion and diffusion data is needed to develop realistic predictive and dynamic models. Ideally, the developed approach would rely on one unique acquisition timepoint at acute stage instead of using time series (longitudinal) data. Structural T1, T2 and FLAIR are commonly used to reveal the final imaging-based tissue outcome. The use of MR angiography (MRA) as efficient tool to include the location of the occlusion in the predictive/simulating model. | |
Provide information about the recruited patients (number, age, stroke severity, “abnormal” blood territory, etc.) and about the how synthetic data was simulated. Better use both of the clinical and the simulated data. | |||
| Problematic issues and key challenges to consider | Considering reperfusion phenomenon might not be considered since segmentation methods are used to determine spatial boundaries of the core and/or penumbral regions at a specific fixed timepoint. | Distinguish between the evolution of ischemic stroke in both white and gray matter as they have different hemodynamic behaviors. Account for reperfusion in its four possible states: (1) natural spontaneous reperfusion without using collateral arteries, (2) spontaneous reperfusion using collateral arteries, (3) no reflow phenomenon, (4) reinforced reperfusion through thrombolysis. Explore more the predictive power of the perfusion/diffusion mismatch and its influence on the dynamic behavior of ischemic strokes. Find a good combination of diffusion and perfusion maps to use in the predictive/dynamic model. Avoid oversimplified hypotheses about brain geometry (1D, 2D) and heterogeneity (e.g.: considering the brain as homogenous tissue). | |
Take into account swelling and shrinking processes to avoid drawing unrealistic conclusions about lesion spatial, temporal and volumetric evolution patterns. Consider the case of scattered ischemic lesions when developing segmentation algorithms and when estimating or predicting an evolution scenario. Use medical-image pre-processing tools to “remove” partial volume effect due to slice thickness in stroke data. Improve the computational speed of the developed approach. Avoid user interaction and aim for a fully automatic approaches. | |||
| Evaluation criteria | Use various evaluation tools (e.g.: dice formula) to assess the accuracy and the precision of segmentation method. | Use both clinical-based and image-outcome based evaluation tools to assess the outcome of both dynamic and prediction models. | |