Mudassar Kamran1, James V Byrne2. 1. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK m.kamran@oxon.org. 2. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Parenchymal blood volume (PBV) estimation using C-arm flat detector computed tomography (FDCT) assumes a steady-state contrast concentration in cerebral vasculature for the scan duration. Using time density curve (TDC) analysis, we explored if the steady-state assumption is met for C-arm CT PBV scans, and how consistent the contrast-material dynamics in cerebral vasculature are across patients. METHODS: Thirty C-arm FDCT datasets of 26 patients with aneurysmal-SAH, acquired as part of a prospective study comparing C-arm CT PBV with MR-PWI, were analysed. TDCs were extracted from the 2D rotational projections. Goodness-of-fit of TDCs to a steady-state horizontal-line-model and the statistical similarity among the individual TDCs were tested. Influence of the differences in TDC characteristics on the agreement of resulting PBV measurements with MR-CBV was calculated. RESULTS: Despite identical scan parameters and contrast-injection-protocol, the individual TDCs were statistically non-identical (p < 0.01). Using Dunn's multiple comparisons test, of the total 435 individual comparisons among the 30 TDCs, 330 comparisons (62%) reached statistical significance for difference. All TDCs deviated significantly (p < 0.01) from the steady-state horizontal-line-model. PBV values of those datasets for which the TDCs showed largest deviations from the steady-state model demonstrated poor agreement and correlation with MR-CBV, compared with the PBV values of those datasets for which the TDCs were closer to steady-state. CONCLUSION: For clinical C-arm CT PBV examinations, the administered contrast material does not reach the assumed 'ideal steady-state' for the duration of scan. Using a prolonged injection protocol, the degree to which the TDCs approximate the ideal steady-state influences the agreement of resulting PBV measurements with MR-CBV.
INTRODUCTION: Parenchymal blood volume (PBV) estimation using C-arm flat detector computed tomography (FDCT) assumes a steady-state contrast concentration in cerebral vasculature for the scan duration. Using time density curve (TDC) analysis, we explored if the steady-state assumption is met for C-arm CT PBV scans, and how consistent the contrast-material dynamics in cerebral vasculature are across patients. METHODS: Thirty C-arm FDCT datasets of 26 patients with aneurysmal-SAH, acquired as part of a prospective study comparing C-arm CT PBV with MR-PWI, were analysed. TDCs were extracted from the 2D rotational projections. Goodness-of-fit of TDCs to a steady-state horizontal-line-model and the statistical similarity among the individual TDCs were tested. Influence of the differences in TDC characteristics on the agreement of resulting PBV measurements with MR-CBV was calculated. RESULTS: Despite identical scan parameters and contrast-injection-protocol, the individual TDCs were statistically non-identical (p < 0.01). Using Dunn's multiple comparisons test, of the total 435 individual comparisons among the 30 TDCs, 330 comparisons (62%) reached statistical significance for difference. All TDCs deviated significantly (p < 0.01) from the steady-state horizontal-line-model. PBV values of those datasets for which the TDCs showed largest deviations from the steady-state model demonstrated poor agreement and correlation with MR-CBV, compared with the PBV values of those datasets for which the TDCs were closer to steady-state. CONCLUSION: For clinical C-arm CT PBV examinations, the administered contrast material does not reach the assumed 'ideal steady-state' for the duration of scan. Using a prolonged injection protocol, the degree to which the TDCs approximate the ideal steady-state influences the agreement of resulting PBV measurements with MR-CBV.
Authors: A S Ahmed; M Zellerhoff; C M Strother; K A Pulfer; T Redel; Y Deuerling-Zheng; K Royalty; D Consigny; D B Niemann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andreas Fieselmann; Arundhuti Ganguly; Yu Deuerling-Zheng; Michael Zellerhoff; Christopher Rohkohl; Jan Boese; Joachim Hornegger; Rebecca Fahrig Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: G J Hunter; L M Hamberg; J A Ponzo; F R Huang-Hellinger; P P Morris; J Rabinov; J Farkas; M H Lev; P W Schaefer; C S Ogilvy; L Schwamm; F S Buonanno; W J Koroshetz; G L Wolf; R G González Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Thijs van der Zijden; Annelies Mondelaers; Maurits Voormolen; Tomas Menovsky; Maarten Niekel; Thomas Jardinet; Thomas Van Thielen; Olivier D'Archambeau; Paul M Parizel Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-08-13