Felicitas J Detmer1, Daniel Fajardo-Jiménez2, Fernando Mut2, Norman Juchler3,4, Sven Hirsch3, Vitor Mendes Pereira5, Philippe Bijlenga6, Juan R Cebral2. 1. Bioengineering Department, Volgenau School of Engineering, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA. fdetmer@gmu.edu. 2. Bioengineering Department, Volgenau School of Engineering, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA. 3. Institute of Applied Simulation, ZHAW University of Applied Sciences, Waedenswil, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Interventional Neuroradiology Unit, Service of Neuroradiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 6. Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For a treatment decision of unruptured cerebral aneurysms, physicians and patients need to weigh the risk of treatment against the risk of hemorrhagic stroke caused by aneurysm rupture. The aim of this study was to externally evaluate a recently developed statistical aneurysm rupture probability model, which could potentially support such treatment decisions. METHODS: Segmented image data and patient information obtained from two patient cohorts including 203 patients with 249 aneurysms were used for patient-specific computational fluid dynamics simulations and subsequent evaluation of the statistical model in terms of accuracy, discrimination, and goodness of fit. The model's performance was further compared to a similarity-based approach for rupture assessment by identifying aneurysms in the training cohort that were similar in terms of hemodynamics and shape compared to a given aneurysm from the external cohorts. RESULTS: When applied to the external data, the model achieved a good discrimination and goodness of fit (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve AUC = 0.82), which was only slightly reduced compared to the optimism-corrected AUC in the training population (AUC = 0.84). The accuracy metrics indicated a small decrease in accuracy compared to the training data (misclassification error of 0.24 vs. 0.21). The model's prediction accuracy was improved when combined with the similarity approach (misclassification error of 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The model's performance measures indicated a good generalizability for data acquired at different clinical institutions. Combining the model-based and similarity-based approach could further improve the assessment and interpretation of new cases, demonstrating its potential use for clinical risk assessment.
BACKGROUND: For a treatment decision of unruptured cerebral aneurysms, physicians and patients need to weigh the risk of treatment against the risk of hemorrhagic stroke caused by aneurysm rupture. The aim of this study was to externally evaluate a recently developed statistical aneurysm rupture probability model, which could potentially support such treatment decisions. METHODS: Segmented image data and patient information obtained from two patient cohorts including 203 patients with 249 aneurysms were used for patient-specific computational fluid dynamics simulations and subsequent evaluation of the statistical model in terms of accuracy, discrimination, and goodness of fit. The model's performance was further compared to a similarity-based approach for rupture assessment by identifying aneurysms in the training cohort that were similar in terms of hemodynamics and shape compared to a given aneurysm from the external cohorts. RESULTS: When applied to the external data, the model achieved a good discrimination and goodness of fit (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve AUC = 0.82), which was only slightly reduced compared to the optimism-corrected AUC in the training population (AUC = 0.84). The accuracy metrics indicated a small decrease in accuracy compared to the training data (misclassification error of 0.24 vs. 0.21). The model's prediction accuracy was improved when combined with the similarity approach (misclassification error of 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The model's performance measures indicated a good generalizability for data acquired at different clinical institutions. Combining the model-based and similarity-based approach could further improve the assessment and interpretation of new cases, demonstrating its potential use for clinical risk assessment.
Authors: B Gregory Thompson; Robert D Brown; Sepideh Amin-Hanjani; Joseph P Broderick; Kevin M Cockroft; E Sander Connolly; Gary R Duckwiler; Catherine C Harris; Virginia J Howard; S Claiborne Clay Johnston; Philip M Meyers; Andrew Molyneux; Christopher S Ogilvy; Andrew J Ringer; James Torner Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Rodney A Gabriel; Helen Kim; Stephen Sidney; Charles E McCulloch; Vineeta Singh; S Claiborne Johnston; Nerissa U Ko; Achal S Achrol; Jonathan G Zaroff; William L Young Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Felicitas J Detmer; Sara Hadad; Bong Jae Chung; Fernando Mut; Martin Slawski; Norman Juchler; Vartan Kurtcuoglu; Sven Hirsch; Philippe Bijlenga; Yuya Uchiyama; Soichiro Fujimura; Makoto Yamamoto; Yuichi Murayama; Hiroyuki Takao; Timo Koivisto; Juhana Frösen; Juan R Cebral Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Felicitas J Detmer; Daniel Lückehe; Fernando Mut; Martin Slawski; Sven Hirsch; Philippe Bijlenga; Gabriele von Voigt; Juan R Cebral Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Vittorio Stumpo; Victor E Staartjes; Giuseppe Esposito; Carlo Serra; Luca Regli; Alessandro Olivi; Carmelo Lucio Sturiale Journal: Acta Neurochir Suppl Date: 2022
Authors: Sarah N Lipp; Elizabeth E Niedert; Hannah L Cebull; Tyler C Diorio; Jessica L Ma; Sean M Rothenberger; Kimberly A Stevens Boster; Craig J Goergen Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 4.566