| Literature DB >> 25392734 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perfusion quantification by using first-pass gadolinium-enhanced myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has proved to be a reliable tool for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease that leads to reduced blood flow to the myocardium. The image series resulting from such acquisition usually exhibits a breathing motion that needs to be compensated for if a further automatic analysis of the perfusion is to be executed. Various algorithms have been presented to facilitate such a motion compensation, but the lack of publicly available data sets hinders a proper, reproducible comparison of these algorithms. MATERIAL: Free breathing perfusion MRI series of ten patients considered clinically to have a stress perfusion defect were acquired; for each patient a rest and a stress study was executed. Manual segmentations of the left ventricle myocardium and the right-left ventricle insertion point are provided for all images in order to make a unified validation of the motion compensation algorithms and the perfusion analysis possible. In addition, all the scripts and the software required to run the experiments are provided alongside the data, and to enable interested parties to directly run the experiments themselves, the test bed is also provided as a virtual hard disk.Entities:
Keywords: Heart; Image registration; Motion compensation; Perfusion; Validation
Year: 2014 PMID: 25392734 PMCID: PMC4226922 DOI: 10.1186/2047-217X-3-23
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gigascience ISSN: 2047-217X Impact factor: 6.524
Figure 1Example images from a first-pass gadolinium-enhanced myocardial perfusion MRI study (patient 5, stress, apical slice): RV enhacement peak (a), LV enhancement peak (b) and myocardial perfusion (c). Note, the hypointense region in the perfused myocardium (c) indicates a reduction in blood flow, i.e. the medical condition that needs to be quantified for the assessment.
Available data sets
| 1 | Rest | 45 | 3 | 5 | Low | |
| Stress | 4 | 5 | Low | | ||
| 2 | Rest | 60 | 5 | 5 | Medium | |
| Stress | 4 | 4 | Medium | | ||
| 3 | Rest | 60 | 5 | 5 | Low | |
| Stress | 5 | 4 | Low | | ||
| 4 | Rest | 60 | 5 | 5 | Low | |
| Stress | 5 | 5 | Low | | ||
| 5 | Rest | 60 | 2 | 5 | Medium | |
| Stress | 4 | 5 | Medium | | ||
| 6 | Rest | 60 | - | 3 | High | No movement |
| Stress | 3 | 3 | High | Shallow breathing | ||
| 7 | Rest | 60 | 5 | 5 | Medium | |
| Stress | 5 | 5 | Medium | Slow breathing rate | ||
| 8 | Rest | 60 | 5 | 5 | Medium | |
| Stress | 5 | 5 | Medium | | ||
| 9 | Rest | 60 | 4 | 4 | Medium | |
| Stress | 5 | 4 | Medium | | ||
| 10 | Rest | 60 | 3 | 5 | Low | |
| Stress | 3 | 5 | Medium | |||
The rating (5 = best) for breathing regularity, image quality, and intensity inhomogeneity is subjective and based on visualizing the series as a looping video.
Figure 2Segmented slice of a perfusion series. The epi- and endocardium are here colored in cyan and red respectively. The circumcircle is estimated based on three points on the epicardium. Here, the first point, indicated by a little circle, is co-located with the anterior RV insertion point forming the basis for consistently dividing the myocardium into sections of equal sizes.
Registration parameters
| Regularization weight | 0.1 / - | 10 / 0.5 |
| Knot spacing/scale | 5 / - | 16 / 0.5 |
| Multi-resolution-levels | 3 | 3 |
| Passes | 1 | ≤5 |
“Scale” refers to the value used to scale the according parameter with each new registration pass.
NMSE before and after registration (smaller is better)
| | |||||
| Unregistered | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.51 | 0.04 | 4.21 |
| QUASI-P | 0.81 | 1.82 | 0.41 | 0.04 | 16.76 |
| QUASI-P ∗ | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.40 | 0.04 | 6.81 |
| ICA-SP | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.35 | 0.04 | 4.40 |
| Unregistered | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.52 | 0.04 | 4.21 |
| QUASI-P | 0.60 | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.04 | 4.57 |
| ICA-SP | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.33 | 0.04 | 4.35 |
| Unregistered | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.06 | 3.86 |
| QUASI-P | 1.02 | 2.47 | 0.42 | 0.05 | 16.76 |
| QUASI-P ∗ | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.05 | 6.81 |
| ICA-SP | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.05 | 4.40 |
Both algorithms result in a significant improvement of the measures, and as with R2 ICA-SP providing the better motion compensation according to the obtained measurements.
Pearsons correlation coefficients before and after registration (larger is better)
| | |||||
| Unregistered | 0.82 | 0.20 | 0.89 | -0.09 | 1.00 |
| QUASI-P | 0.90 | 0.16 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| QUASI-P ∗ | 0.91 | 0.12 | 0.95 | 0.13 | 1.00 |
| ICA-SP | 0.92 | 0.13 | 0.97 | 0.17 | 1.00 |
| Unregistered | 0.81 | 0.18 | 0.88 | 0.15 | 0.99 |
| QUASI-P | 0.90 | 0.13 | 0.95 | 0.13 | 1.00 |
| ICA-SP | 0.93 | 0.11 | 0.97 | 0.33 | 1.00 |
| Unregistered | 0.82 | 0.22 | 0.91 | -0.09 | 1.00 |
| QUASI-P | 0.90 | 0.19 | 0.96 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| QUASI-P ∗ | 0.92 | 0.11 | 0.96 | 0.15 | 1.00 |
| ICA-SP | 0.92 | 0.15 | 0.97 | 0.17 | 1.00 |
Both algorithms result in a significant improvement of the measures with ICA-SP providing the better motion compensation than QUASI-P according to the obtained average value of R2.
Validation measures before and after registration of the motion free series
| | |||||
| Unregistered | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| QUASI-P | 0.50 | 0.32 | 0.63 | 0.00 | 0.87 |
| ICA-SP | 0.94 | 0.09 | 0.99 | 0.66 | 1.00 |
| Unregistered | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| QUASI-P | 2.21 | 1.94 | 1.37 | 0.20 | 6.85 |
| ICA-SP | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.46 |
While ICA-SP mostly preserves the data, the application of QUASI-P brings the original alignment to naught.