Mariana M Lamacie1, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan1,2, Kate Hanneman1,3, Andreas Greiser4, Marie-Pierre Jolly5, Richard Ward2, Bernd J Wintersperger6,7,8. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Siemens Healthcare, Medical Imaging Technologies, Princeton, NJ, USA. 6. Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Bernd.Wintersperger@uhn.ca. 7. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Bernd.Wintersperger@uhn.ca. 8. Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital, 1 PMB-273, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2N2, Canada. Bernd.Wintersperger@uhn.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate deformable registration algorithms (DRA)-based quantification of cine steady-state free-precession (SSFP) for myocardial strain assessment in comparison with feature-tracking (FT) and speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). METHODS: Data sets of 28 patients/10 volunteers, undergoing same-day 1.5T cardiac MRI and echocardiography were included. LV global longitudinal (GLS), circumferential (GCS) and radial (GRS) peak systolic strain were assessed on cine SSFP data using commercially available FT algorithms and prototype DRA-based algorithms. STE was applied as standard of reference for accuracy, precision and intra-/interobserver reproducibility testing. RESULTS: DRA showed narrower limits of agreement compared to STE for GLS (-4.0 [-0.9,-7.9]) and GCS (-5.1 [1.1,-11.2]) than FT (3.2 [11.2,-4.9]; 3.8 [13.9,-6.3], respectively). While both DRA and FT demonstrated significant differences to STE for GLS and GCS (all p<0.001), only DRA correlated significantly to STE for GLS (r=0.47; p=0.006). However, good correlation was demonstrated between MR techniques (GLS:r=0.74; GCS:r=0.80; GRS:r=0.45, all p<0.05). Comparing DRA with FT, intra-/interobserver coefficient of variance was lower (1.6 %/3.2 % vs. 6.4 %/5.7 %) and intraclass-correlation coefficient was higher. DRA GCS and GRS data presented zero variability for repeated observations. CONCLUSIONS: DRA is an automated method that allows myocardial deformation assessment with superior reproducibility compared to FT. KEY POINTS: • Inverse deformable registration algorithms (DRA) allow myocardial strain analysis on cine MRI. • Inverse DRA demonstrated superior reproducibility compared to feature-tracking (FT) methods. • Cine MR DRA and FT analysis demonstrate differences to speckle-tracking echocardiography • DRA demonstrated better correlation with STE than FT for MR-derived global strain data.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate deformable registration algorithms (DRA)-based quantification of cine steady-state free-precession (SSFP) for myocardial strain assessment in comparison with feature-tracking (FT) and speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). METHODS: Data sets of 28 patients/10 volunteers, undergoing same-day 1.5T cardiac MRI and echocardiography were included. LV global longitudinal (GLS), circumferential (GCS) and radial (GRS) peak systolic strain were assessed on cine SSFP data using commercially available FT algorithms and prototype DRA-based algorithms. STE was applied as standard of reference for accuracy, precision and intra-/interobserver reproducibility testing. RESULTS: DRA showed narrower limits of agreement compared to STE for GLS (-4.0 [-0.9,-7.9]) and GCS (-5.1 [1.1,-11.2]) than FT (3.2 [11.2,-4.9]; 3.8 [13.9,-6.3], respectively). While both DRA and FT demonstrated significant differences to STE for GLS and GCS (all p<0.001), only DRA correlated significantly to STE for GLS (r=0.47; p=0.006). However, good correlation was demonstrated between MR techniques (GLS:r=0.74; GCS:r=0.80; GRS:r=0.45, all p<0.05). Comparing DRA with FT, intra-/interobserver coefficient of variance was lower (1.6 %/3.2 % vs. 6.4 %/5.7 %) and intraclass-correlation coefficient was higher. DRA GCS and GRS data presented zero variability for repeated observations. CONCLUSIONS: DRA is an automated method that allows myocardial deformation assessment with superior reproducibility compared to FT. KEY POINTS: • Inverse deformable registration algorithms (DRA) allow myocardial strain analysis on cine MRI. • Inverse DRA demonstrated superior reproducibility compared to feature-tracking (FT) methods. • Cine MR DRA and FT analysis demonstrate differences to speckle-tracking echocardiography • DRA demonstrated better correlation with STE than FT for MR-derived global strain data.
Authors: Eric J Keller; Shanna Fang; Kai Lin; Benjamin H Freed; Peter M Smith; Bruce S Spottiswoode; Rachel Davids; Maria Carr; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Michael Markl; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-02-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Manuel A Morales; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Iman Aganj; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Bruce R Rosen; Ciprian Catana Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Maria Panayiotou; R James Housden; Athanasius Ishak; Alexander Brost; Christopher A Rinaldi; Benjamin Sieniewicz; Jonathan M Behar; Tanja Kurzendorfer; Kawal S Rhode Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 2.924