| Literature DB >> 27547451 |
Sharon Chen1, Yu-Chang Tyan2, Jui-Jen Lai3, Chin-Ching Chang3.
Abstract
Purpose. Quantitative cerebral blood flow (CBF) measurement using dynamic susceptibility contrast- (DSC-) MRI requires accurate estimation of the arterial input function (AIF). The present work utilized the independent component analysis (ICA) method to determine the AIF in the regions adjacent to the middle cerebral artery (MCA) by the alleviated confounding of partial volume effect. Materials and Methods. A series of spin-echo EPI MR scans were performed in 10 normal subjects. All subjects received 0.2 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA contrast agent. AIFs were calculated by two methods: (1) the region of interest (ROI) selected manually and (2) weighted average of each component selected by ICA (weighted-ICA). The singular value decomposition (SVD) method was then employed to deconvolve the AIF from the tissue concentration time curve to obtain quantitative CBF values. Results. The CBF values calculated by the weighted-ICA method were 41.1 ± 4.9 and 22.1 ± 2.3 mL/100 g/min for cortical gray matter (GM) and deep white matter (WM) regions, respectively. The CBF values obtained based on the manual ROIs were 53.6 ± 12.0 and 27.9 ± 5.9 mL/100 g/min for the same two regions, respectively. Conclusion. The weighted-ICA method allowed semiautomatic and straightforward extraction of the ROI adjacent to MCA. Through eliminating the partial volume effect to minimum, the CBF thus determined may reflect more accurate physical characteristics of the T2(⁎) signal changes induced by the contrast agent.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27547451 PMCID: PMC4980584 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2657405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Res Pract ISSN: 2090-195X
Figure 1(a) The physiological signals for artery (I), surrounding tissue (II), and tissue (III) are simulated in three blocks (in red, green, and blue, resp.). The partial volume fractions between (I, II) and (II, III) were 0.5. (b) The generated raw signals were calculated from Kiselev's approach [30].
Figure 2The performance of signal segmentation for three ROIs after ICA. The spatial segmentation of ROIs was listed in (a)–(e) along different CNRs. The area symbols for artery, surrounding tissue, and tissue are denoted as I, II, and III, respectively. The performance in signal segmentation is summarized in (f). The solid line denotes the true rate of selected region located in the ROI and the dash line is the false rate outside ROI.
Figure 3Regions selected by the manual ROI and ICA method (blue: manual selection; red and green: artery and its surrounding tissue selected by weighted-ICA).
Figure 4Different AIFs were determined for eight subjects in (a)–(h). (1) The artery with weighted-ICA (solid dark gray line); (2) the average with manual ROI (solid black line); and (3) the surrounding tissue with weighted-ICA (solid light gray line). This figure also shows the result.
Comparisons of time-to-peak (TTP), arrival time (the first time point above the mean time response), FWHM, and peak high after gamma fitting in 8 subjects as determined by manual ROI (Manu-roi) and ICA in artery (ICA-aw) and surrounding tissue (ICA-sw). Below the table, there is statistic comparison with paired t-test for manual and weighted-ICA ROI. Significant difference between Manu-roi and ICA-aw ROI is found in TTP, onset time, and peak high and that between Manu-roi and ICA-sw ROI is found in TTP, onset time, FWHM, and peak. For ICA-aw and ICA-sw, there are significant differences in onset time, FWHM, and peak high.
| TTP (sec) | Onset time (sec) | FWHM (sec) | Peak high (#/mL) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manu-roi | ICA-aw | ICA-sw | Manu-roi | ICA-aw | ICA-sw | Manu-roi | ICA-aw | ICA-sw | Manu-roi | ICA-aw | ICA-sw | |
| #1 (36 y, m) | 26.70 | 25.89 | 26.07 | 21.12 | 19.64 | 21.89 | 7.650 | 7.305 | 5.775 | 546.6 | 1423 | 324.4 |
| #2 (33 y, m) | 29.36 | 27.66 | 27.98 | 20.94 | 20.55 | 21.68 | 9.615 | 8.295 | 7.365 | 528.4 | 1020 | 456.5 |
| #3 (32 y, m) | 28.20 | 27.20 | 27.27 | 21.09 | 20.01 | 22.67 | 9.450 | 9.375 | 7.005 | 421.6 | 1077 | 337.3 |
| #4 (46 y, m) | 26.58 | 27.81 | 27.50 | 21.42 | 20.97 | 22.37 | 6.495 | 7.830 | 6.885 | 401.4 | 960.2 | 305.9 |
| #5 (35 y, f) | 24.74 | 24.18 | 24.03 | 18.68 | 18.60 | 19.08 | 9.060 | 8.655 | 6.090 | 427.8 | 792.2 | 508.3 |
| #6 (35 y, f) | 22.69 | 22.16 | 21.71 | 18.24 | 17.48 | 17.67 | 6.960 | 7.515 | 5.865 | 438.0 | 671.2 | 463.1 |
| #7 (38 y, f) | 30.50 | 29.41 | 29.58 | 22.85 | 22.88 | 25.73 | 12.53 | 9.240 | 4.920 | 422.3 | 903.7 | 309.9 |
| #8 (29 y, f) | 27.25 | 26.42 | 26.37 | 20.15 | 19.00 | 22.37 | 11.12 | 9.855 | 4.380 | 361.2 | 1033 | 411.1 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Mean | 27.00 | 26.34a | 26.31a | 20.56 | 19.89a | 21.68a,b | 9.110 | 8.509 | 6.036a,b | 443.4 | 985.0 | 389.6a,b |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Stdc | 2.487 | 2.281 | 2.456 | 1.503 | 1.642 | 2.427 | 2.060 | 0.931 | 1.036 | 62.78 | 222.6 | 79.98 |
aSignificantly (P < 0.05, paired t-test) higher than Manu-roi.
bSignificantly (P < 0.05, paired t-test) higher than ICA-aw.
cStandard deviation.
rCBFs are calculated by the AIFs determined by the manual ROI (Manu-roi) and ICA-based ROI (weighted-ICA) method in gray and white matter regions. The paired t-test is employed to test the difference between the manual and ICA-based method in the artery (GM and WM) and surrounding tissue (GM and WM) and between the artery and surrounding tissue in the ICA-based method in gray and white matter regions.
| rCBF (mL/100 g/min) | Manu-roi | ICA-aw | ICA-sw | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GM | WM | (G/W) | GM | WM | (G/W) | GM | WM | (G/W) | |
| #1 (36 y, m) | 66.98 | 38.35 | 1.746 | 56.13 | 35.17 | 1.596 | 41.94 | 24.83 | 1.689 |
| #2 (33 y, m) | 54.22 | 28.22 | 1.921 | 54.25 | 30.78 | 1.762 | 40.83 | 21.98 | 1.857 |
| #3 (32 y, m) | 42.26 | 24.05 | 1.757 | 48.00 | 30.60 | 1.569 | 35.02 | 21.14 | 1.656 |
| #4 (46 y, m) | 45.79 | 29.57 | 1.549 | 40.33 | 30.16 | 1.337 | 38.70 | 24.55 | 1.576 |
| #5 (35 y, f) | 64.09 | 28.75 | 2.229 | 60.73 | 28.78 | 2.110 | 46.52 | 23.68 | 1.964 |
| #6 (35 y, f) | 49.08 | 21.95 | 2.236 | 48.09 | 22.13 | 2.173 | 46.75 | 21.17 | 2.208 |
| #7 (38 y, f) | 37.33 | 20.13 | 1.855 | 41.74 | 24.73 | 1.688 | 34.05 | 17.71 | 1.922 |
| #8 (29 y, f) | 69.27 | 32.20 | 2.151 | 66.52 | 34.73 | 1.915 | 45.10 | 21.55 | 2.093 |
|
| |||||||||
| Mean | 53.63 | 27.90 | 1.931 | 51.97 | 29.64 | 1.769a | 41.11a,b | 22.08a,b | 1.871a,b |
|
| |||||||||
| Stdc | 12.01 | 5.879 | 0.253 | 9.118 | 4.476 | 0.2839 | 4.935 | 2.309 | 0.221 |
GM = gray matter; WM = white matter; G/W = the ratio of gray matter and white matter.
aSignificantly (P < 0.05, paired t-test) higher than ROI in GM, WM, and G/W.
bSignificantly (P < 0.05, paired t-test) higher than A wic in GM, WM, and G/W.
cStandard deviation.
Figure 5Various AIFs (A–E) are employed to test the deconvolution calculation for flow in dilution theory. “A” (red line) is the ideal AIF defined in the paper [38] and the ideal flow is 80 mL/100 g·min. The thresholding value is the cut-off value in adaptive SVD calculation [33]. B–E curves are the nonideal AIFs simulated.
Estimated flow obtained from calculation of Figure 5.
| Estimated flow | Area under curve | Thresholding (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 76.40 | 262.43 | 13.64 |
|
| 38.20 | 524.86 | 27.27 |
|
| 84.73 | 523.18 | 25.82 |
|
| 42.36 | 1046.36 | 51.64 |
|
| 168.91 | 262.43 | 12.95 |
Note: the signal-to-noise ratio is 27.7 for A.