Midas Meijs1, Soren Christensen2, Maarten G Lansberg2, Gregory W Albers2, Fernando Calamante3,4,5. 1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Stanford Stroke Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 3. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia. fernando.calamante@florey.edu.au. 4. The Florey Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. fernando.calamante@florey.edu.au. 5. Department of Medicine, Austin Health and Northern Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. fernando.calamante@florey.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is currently controversy regarding the benefits of deconvolution-based parameters in stroke imaging, with studies suggesting a similar infarct prediction using summary parameters. We investigate here the performance of deconvolution-based parameters and summary parameters for dynamic-susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI analysis, with particular emphasis on precision. METHODS: Numerical simulations were used to assess the contribution of noise and arterial input function (AIF) variability to measurement precision. A realistic AIF range was defined based on in vivo data from an acute stroke clinical study. The simulated tissue curves were analyzed using two popular singular value decomposition (SVD) based algorithms, as well as using summary parameters. RESULTS: SVD-based deconvolution methods were found to considerably reduce the AIF-dependency, but a residual AIF bias remained on the calculated parameters. Summary parameters, in turn, show a lower sensitivity to noise. The residual AIF-dependency for deconvolution methods and the large AIF-sensitivity of summary parameters was greatly reduced when normalizing them relative to normal tissue. CONCLUSION: Consistent with recent studies suggesting high performance of summary parameters in infarct prediction, our results suggest that DSC-MRI analysis using properly normalized summary parameters may have advantages in terms of lower noise and AIF-sensitivity as compared to commonly used deconvolution methods. Magn Reson Med 76:1282-1290, 2016.
PURPOSE: There is currently controversy regarding the benefits of deconvolution-based parameters in stroke imaging, with studies suggesting a similar infarct prediction using summary parameters. We investigate here the performance of deconvolution-based parameters and summary parameters for dynamic-susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI analysis, with particular emphasis on precision. METHODS: Numerical simulations were used to assess the contribution of noise and arterial input function (AIF) variability to measurement precision. A realistic AIF range was defined based on in vivo data from an acute stroke clinical study. The simulated tissue curves were analyzed using two popular singular value decomposition (SVD) based algorithms, as well as using summary parameters. RESULTS:SVD-based deconvolution methods were found to considerably reduce the AIF-dependency, but a residual AIF bias remained on the calculated parameters. Summary parameters, in turn, show a lower sensitivity to noise. The residual AIF-dependency for deconvolution methods and the large AIF-sensitivity of summary parameters was greatly reduced when normalizing them relative to normal tissue. CONCLUSION: Consistent with recent studies suggesting high performance of summary parameters in infarct prediction, our results suggest that DSC-MRI analysis using properly normalized summary parameters may have advantages in terms of lower noise and AIF-sensitivity as compared to commonly used deconvolution methods. Magn Reson Med 76:1282-1290, 2016.
Authors: Mohammed Salman Shazeeb; Robert M King; Olivia W Brooks; Ajit S Puri; Nils Henninger; Johannes Boltze; Matthew J Gounis Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Manuel Alexander Schmidt; Michael Knott; Philip Hoelter; Tobias Engelhorn; Elna Marie Larsson; Than Nguyen; Marco Essig; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Anke Wouters; David Robben; Soren Christensen; Henk A Marquering; Yvo B W E M Roos; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Charles B L M Majoie; Wouter J Schonewille; Aad van der Lugt; Maarten Lansberg; Gregory W Albers; Paul Suetens; Robin Lemmens Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Anke Wouters; Søren Christensen; Matus Straka; Michael Mlynash; John Liggins; Roland Bammer; Vincent Thijs; Robin Lemmens; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Wu Qiu; Hulin Kuang; Johanna M Ospel; Michael D Hill; Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon Journal: J Stroke Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 6.967