A Chien1, M Xu2, H Yokota2, F Scalzo3, E Morimoto2, N Salamon2. 1. From the Departments of Radiological Science (A.C., M.X., H.Y., E.M., N.S.) aichi@ucla.edu. 2. From the Departments of Radiological Science (A.C., M.X., H.Y., E.M., N.S.). 3. Neurology (F.S.), David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent studies have strongly associated intracranial aneurysm growth with increased risk of rupture. Identifying aneurysms that are likely to grow would be beneficial to plan more effective monitoring and intervention strategies. Our hypothesis is that for unruptured intracranial aneurysms of similar size, morphologic characteristics differ between aneurysms that continue to grow and those that do not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From aneurysms in our medical center with follow-up imaging dates in 2015, ninety-three intracranial aneurysms (23 growing, 70 stable) were selected. All CTA images for the aneurysm diagnosis and follow-up were collected, a total of 348 3D imaging studies. Aneurysm 3D geometry for each imaging study was reconstructed, and morphologic characteristics, including volume, surface area, nonsphericity index, aspect ratio, and size ratio were calculated. RESULTS: Morphologic characteristics were found to differ between growing and stable groups. For aneurysms of <3 mm, nonsphericity index (P < .001); 3-5 mm, nonsphericity index (P < .001); 5-7 mm, size ratio (P = .003); >7 mm, volume (P < .001); surface area (P < .001); and nonsphericity index (P = .002) were significant. Within the anterior communicating artery, the nonsphericity index (P = .008) and, within the posterior communicating artery, size ratio (P = .004) were significant. The nonsphericity index receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was 0.721 for discriminating growing and stable cases on the basis of initial images. CONCLUSIONS: Among aneurysms with similar sizes, morphologic characteristics appear to differ between those that are growing and those that are stable. The nonsphericity index, in particular, was found to be higher among growing aneurysms. The size ratio was found to be the second most significant parameter associated with growth.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent studies have strongly associated intracranial aneurysm growth with increased risk of rupture. Identifying aneurysms that are likely to grow would be beneficial to plan more effective monitoring and intervention strategies. Our hypothesis is that for unruptured intracranial aneurysms of similar size, morphologic characteristics differ between aneurysms that continue to grow and those that do not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From aneurysms in our medical center with follow-up imaging dates in 2015, ninety-three intracranial aneurysms (23 growing, 70 stable) were selected. All CTA images for the aneurysm diagnosis and follow-up were collected, a total of 348 3D imaging studies. Aneurysm 3D geometry for each imaging study was reconstructed, and morphologic characteristics, including volume, surface area, nonsphericity index, aspect ratio, and size ratio were calculated. RESULTS: Morphologic characteristics were found to differ between growing and stable groups. For aneurysms of <3 mm, nonsphericity index (P < .001); 3-5 mm, nonsphericity index (P < .001); 5-7 mm, size ratio (P = .003); >7 mm, volume (P < .001); surface area (P < .001); and nonsphericity index (P = .002) were significant. Within the anterior communicating artery, the nonsphericity index (P = .008) and, within the posterior communicating artery, size ratio (P = .004) were significant. The nonsphericity index receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was 0.721 for discriminating growing and stable cases on the basis of initial images. CONCLUSIONS: Among aneurysms with similar sizes, morphologic characteristics appear to differ between those that are growing and those that are stable. The nonsphericity index, in particular, was found to be higher among growing aneurysms. The size ratio was found to be the second most significant parameter associated with growth.
Authors: J Pablo Villablanca; Gary R Duckwiler; Reza Jahan; Satoshi Tateshima; Neil A Martin; John Frazee; Nestor R Gonzalez; James Sayre; Fernando V Vinuela Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Ujiie; H Tachibana; O Hiramatsu; A L Hazel; T Matsumoto; Y Ogasawara; H Nakajima; T Hori; K Takakura; F Kajiya Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: W Brinjikji; Y-Q Zhu; G Lanzino; H J Cloft; M H Murad; Z Wang; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: E L Leemans; B M W Cornelissen; C H Slump; C B L M Majoie; J R Cebral; H A Marquering Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B J Chung; F Mut; C M Putman; F Hamzei-Sichani; W Brinjikji; D Kallmes; C M Jimenez; J R Cebral Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Pablo M Munarriz; Eduardo Bárcena; Jose F Alén; Ana M Castaño-Leon; Igor Paredes; Luis Miguel Moreno-Gómez; Daniel García-Pérez; Luis Jiménez-Roldán; Pedro A Gómez; Alfonso Lagares Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 1.610