Eric Schrauben1,2, Anders Wåhlin2,3,4, Khalid Ambarki2,5, Erik Spaak2, Jan Malm6, Oliver Wieben1,4, Anders Eklund2,5. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 3. Umeå Center for Functional Brain Imaging (UFBI), Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Center for Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 6. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe, validate, and implement a centerline processing scheme (CPS) for semiautomated segmentation and quantification in carotid siphons of healthy subjects. 4D flow MRI enables blood flow measurement in all major cerebral arteries with one scan. Clinical translational hurdles are time demanding postprocessing and user-dependence induced variability during analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CPS for 4D flow data was developed to automatically separate cerebral artery trees. Flow parameters were quantified at planes along the centerline oriented perpendicular to the vessel path. At 3T, validation against 2D phase-contrast (PC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 4D flow manual processing was performed on an intracranial flow phantom for constant flow, while pulsatile flow validation was performed in the internal carotid artery (ICA) of 10 healthy volunteers. The CPS and 4D manual processing times were measured and compared. Flow and area measurements were also demonstrated along the length of the ICA siphon. RESULTS: Phantom measurements for area and flow were highly correlated between the CPS and 2D measurements (area: R = 0.95, flow: R = 0.94), while in vivo waveforms were highly correlated (R = 0.93). Processing time was reduced by a factor of 4.6 compared with manual processing. Whole ICA measurements revealed a significantly decreased area in the most distal segment of the carotid siphon (P = 0.0017), with flow unchanged (P = 0.84). CONCLUSION: This study exhibits fast semiautomated analysis of intracranial 4D flow MRI. Internal consistency was shown through flow conservation along the tortuous ICA siphon, which is typically difficult to assess.
PURPOSE: To describe, validate, and implement a centerline processing scheme (CPS) for semiautomated segmentation and quantification in carotid siphons of healthy subjects. 4D flow MRI enables blood flow measurement in all major cerebral arteries with one scan. Clinical translational hurdles are time demanding postprocessing and user-dependence induced variability during analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CPS for 4D flow data was developed to automatically separate cerebral artery trees. Flow parameters were quantified at planes along the centerline oriented perpendicular to the vessel path. At 3T, validation against 2D phase-contrast (PC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 4D flow manual processing was performed on an intracranial flow phantom for constant flow, while pulsatile flow validation was performed in the internal carotid artery (ICA) of 10 healthy volunteers. The CPS and 4D manual processing times were measured and compared. Flow and area measurements were also demonstrated along the length of the ICA siphon. RESULTS: Phantom measurements for area and flow were highly correlated between the CPS and 2D measurements (area: R = 0.95, flow: R = 0.94), while in vivo waveforms were highly correlated (R = 0.93). Processing time was reduced by a factor of 4.6 compared with manual processing. Whole ICA measurements revealed a significantly decreased area in the most distal segment of the carotid siphon (P = 0.0017), with flow unchanged (P = 0.84). CONCLUSION: This study exhibits fast semiautomated analysis of intracranial 4D flow MRI. Internal consistency was shown through flow conservation along the tortuous ICA siphon, which is typically difficult to assess.
Authors: Anders Wåhlin; Khalid Ambarki; Jón Hauksson; Richard Birgander; Jan Malm; Anders Eklund Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tianliang Gu; Frank R Korosec; Walter F Block; Sean B Fain; Quill Turk; Darren Lum; Yong Zhou; Thomas M Grist; Victor Haughton; Charles A Mistretta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kevin M Johnson; Darren P Lum; Patrick A Turski; Walter F Block; Charles A Mistretta; Oliver Wieben Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tora Dunås; Anders Wåhlin; Khalid Ambarki; Laleh Zarrinkoob; Richard Birgander; Jan Malm; Anders Eklund Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Emilie Bollache; Pim van Ooij; Alex Powell; James Carr; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: J Mikhail Kellawan; John W Harrell; Alejandro Roldan-Alzate; Oliver Wieben; William G Schrage Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Leonardo A Rivera-Rivera; Tilman Schubert; Patrick Turski; Kevin M Johnson; Sara E Berman; Howard A Rowley; Cynthia M Carlsson; Sterling C Johnson; Oliver Wieben Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Tomas Vikner; Lars Nyberg; Madelene Holmgren; Jan Malm; Anders Eklund; Anders Wåhlin Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Sebastian Schmitter; Gregor Adriany; Matt Waks; Steen Moeller; Maria Aristova; Alireza Vali; Edward J Auerbach; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Kamil Ugurbil; Susanne Schnell Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lindsay R Clark; Derek Norton; Sara E Berman; Sterling C Johnson; Barbara B Bendlin; Oliver Wieben; Patrick Turski; Cynthia Carlsson; Sanjay Asthana; Carey E Gleason; Heather M Johnson Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: J Mikhail Kellawan; Garrett L Peltonen; John W Harrell; Alejandro Roldan-Alzate; Oliver Wieben; William G Schrage Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Leonardo A Rivera-Rivera; Karly A Cody; Laura Eisenmenger; Paul Cary; Howard A Rowley; Cynthia M Carlsson; Sterling C Johnson; Kevin M Johnson Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 6.200