K Niu1, P Yang2, Y Wu1, T Struffert3, A Doerfler3, S Schafer4, K Royalty4, C Strother5, G-H Chen6. 1. From the Departments of Medical Physics (K.N., Y.W., G.-H.C.). 2. Radiology (P.Y., C.S., G.-H.C.), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin Department of Neurosurgery (P.Y.), Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 3. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (T.S., A.D.), Erlangen, Germany. 4. Siemens Medical Solutions USA (S.S., K.R.), Hoffman Estates, Illinois. 5. Radiology (P.Y., C.S., G.-H.C.), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 6. From the Departments of Medical Physics (K.N., Y.W., G.-H.C.) Radiology (P.Y., C.S., G.-H.C.), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin gchen7@wisc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Perfusion imaging in the angiography suite may provide a way to reduce time from stroke onset to endovascular revascularization of patients with large-vessel occlusion. Our purpose was to compare conebeam CT perfusion with multidetector CT perfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 7 subjects with both multidetector CT perfusion and conebeam CT perfusion were retrospectively processed and analyzed. Two algorithms were used to enhance temporal resolution and temporal sampling density and reduce the noise of conebeam CT data before generating perfusion maps. Two readers performed qualitative image-quality evaluation on maps by using a 5-point scale. ROIs indicating CBF/CBV abnormalities were drawn. Quantitative analyses were performed by using the Sørensen-Dice coefficients to quantify the similarity of abnormalities. A noninferiority hypothesis was tested to compare conebeam CT perfusion against multidetector CT perfusion. RESULTS: Average image-quality scores for multidetector CT perfusion and conebeam CT perfusion images were 2.4 and 2.3, respectively. The average confidence score in diagnosis was 1.4 for both multidetector CT and conebeam CT; the average confidence scores for the presence of a CBV/CBF mismatch were 1.7 (κ = 0.50) and 1.5 (κ = 0.64). For multidetector CT perfusion and conebeam CT perfusion maps, the average scores of confidence in making treatment decisions were 1.4 (κ = 0.79) and 1.3 (κ = 0.90). The area under the visual grading characteristic for the above 4 qualitative quality scores showed an average area under visual grading characteristic of 0.50, with 95% confidence level cover centered at the mean for both readers. The Sørensen-Dice coefficient for CBF maps was 0.81, and for CBV maps, 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: After postprocessing methods were applied to enhance image quality for conebeam CT perfusion maps, the conebeam CT perfusion maps were not inferior to those generated from multidetector CT perfusion.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Perfusion imaging in the angiography suite may provide a way to reduce time from stroke onset to endovascular revascularization of patients with large-vessel occlusion. Our purpose was to compare conebeam CT perfusion with multidetector CT perfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 7 subjects with both multidetector CT perfusion and conebeam CT perfusion were retrospectively processed and analyzed. Two algorithms were used to enhance temporal resolution and temporal sampling density and reduce the noise of conebeam CT data before generating perfusion maps. Two readers performed qualitative image-quality evaluation on maps by using a 5-point scale. ROIs indicating CBF/CBV abnormalities were drawn. Quantitative analyses were performed by using the Sørensen-Dice coefficients to quantify the similarity of abnormalities. A noninferiority hypothesis was tested to compare conebeam CT perfusion against multidetector CT perfusion. RESULTS: Average image-quality scores for multidetector CT perfusion and conebeam CT perfusion images were 2.4 and 2.3, respectively. The average confidence score in diagnosis was 1.4 for both multidetector CT and conebeam CT; the average confidence scores for the presence of a CBV/CBF mismatch were 1.7 (κ = 0.50) and 1.5 (κ = 0.64). For multidetector CT perfusion and conebeam CT perfusion maps, the average scores of confidence in making treatment decisions were 1.4 (κ = 0.79) and 1.3 (κ = 0.90). The area under the visual grading characteristic for the above 4 qualitative quality scores showed an average area under visual grading characteristic of 0.50, with 95% confidence level cover centered at the mean for both readers. The Sørensen-Dice coefficient for CBF maps was 0.81, and for CBV maps, 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: After postprocessing methods were applied to enhance image quality for conebeam CT perfusion maps, the conebeam CT perfusion maps were not inferior to those generated from multidetector CT perfusion.
Authors: T Struffert; Y Deuerling-Zheng; S Kloska; T Engelhorn; S Lang; A Mennecke; M Manhart; C M Strother; S Schwab; A Doerfler Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael T Manhart; André Aichert; Tobias Struffert; Yu Deuerling-Zheng; Markus Kowarschik; Andreas K Maier; Joachim Hornegger; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olvert A Berkhemer; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Lucie A van den Berg; Hester F Lingsma; Albert J Yoo; Wouter J Schonewille; Jan Albert Vos; Paul J Nederkoorn; Marieke J H Wermer; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Julie Staals; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Jacques A van Oostayen; Geert J Lycklama à Nijeholt; Jelis Boiten; Patrick A Brouwer; Bart J Emmer; Sebastiaan F de Bruijn; Lukas C van Dijk; L Jaap Kappelle; Rob H Lo; Ewoud J van Dijk; Joost de Vries; Paul L M de Kort; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Jan S P van den Berg; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Leo A M Aerden; René J Dallinga; Marieke C Visser; Joseph C J Bot; Patrick C Vroomen; Omid Eshghi; Tobien H C M L Schreuder; Roel J J Heijboer; Koos Keizer; Alexander V Tielbeek; Heleen M den Hertog; Dick G Gerrits; Renske M van den Berg-Vos; Giorgos B Karas; Ewout W Steyerberg; H Zwenneke Flach; Henk A Marquering; Marieke E S Sprengers; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Ludo F M Beenen; René van den Berg; Peter J Koudstaal; Wim H van Zwam; Yvo B W E M Roos; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Charles B L M Majoie; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Muneer Eesa; Jeremy L Rempel; John Thornton; Daniel Roy; Tudor G Jovin; Robert A Willinsky; Biggya L Sapkota; Dar Dowlatshahi; Donald F Frei; Noreen R Kamal; Walter J Montanera; Alexandre Y Poppe; Karla J Ryckborst; Frank L Silver; Ashfaq Shuaib; Donatella Tampieri; David Williams; Oh Young Bang; Blaise W Baxter; Paul A Burns; Hana Choe; Ji-Hoe Heo; Christine A Holmstedt; Brian Jankowitz; Michael Kelly; Guillermo Linares; Jennifer L Mandzia; Jai Shankar; Sung-Il Sohn; Richard H Swartz; Philip A Barber; Shelagh B Coutts; Eric E Smith; William F Morrish; Alain Weill; Suresh Subramaniam; Alim P Mitha; John H Wong; Mark W Lowerison; Tolulope T Sajobi; Michael D Hill Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph P Broderick; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Frank L Silver; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Bart M Demaerschalk; Ronald Budzik; Wayne M Clark; Osama O Zaidat; Tim W Malisch; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Renée H Martin; Lydia D Foster; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rohil Malpani; Christopher W Petty; Junlin Yang; Neha Bhatt; Tal Zeevi; Vijay Chockalingam; Rajiv Raju; Alexandra Petukhova-Greenstein; Jessica Gois Santana; Todd R Schlachter; David C Madoff; Julius Chapiro; James Duncan; MingDe Lin Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: H Huang; J H Siewerdsen; W Zbijewski; C R Weiss; M Unberath; T Ehtiati; A Sisniega Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Katsuyuki Taguchi; Thomas J Sauer; W Paul Segars; Eric C Frey; Jingyan Xu; Eleni Liapi; J Webster Stayman; Kelvin Hong; Ferdinand K Hui; Mathias Unberath; Yong Du Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Johanna Rosemarie Leyhe; Ioannis Tsogkas; Amélie Carolina Hesse; Daniel Behme; Katharina Schregel; Ismini Papageorgiou; Jan Liman; Michael Knauth; Marios-Nikos Psychogios Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez; Darko Quispe-Orozco; Sebastian Schafer; Mudassir Farooqui; Cynthia B Zevallos; Sudeepta Dandapat; Alan Mendez-Ruiz; Beverly Aagaard-Kienitz; Nils Petersen; Colin P Derdeyn Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 2.324