Thomas Huber1, Lukas Rotkopf2,3, Benedikt Wiestler3, Wolfgang G Kunz2, Stefanie Bette3, Jens Gempt4, Christine Preibisch3, Jens Ricke2, Claus Zimmer3, Jan S Kirschke3, Wieland H Sommer2, Kolja M Thierfelder2,5. 1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. thomas.huber@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 5. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medicine Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Parameter maps based on wavelet-transform post-processing of dynamic perfusion data offer an innovative way of visualizing blood vessels in a fully automated, user-independent way. The aims of this study were (i) a proof of concept regarding wavelet-based analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI data and (ii) to demonstrate advantages of wavelet-based measures compared to standard cerebral blood volume (CBV) maps in patients with the initial diagnosis of glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Consecutive 3-T DSC MRI datasets of 46 subjects with GBM (mean age 63.0 ± 13.1 years, 28 m) were retrospectively included in this feasibility study. Vessel-specific wavelet magnetic resonance perfusion (wavelet-MRP) maps were calculated using the wavelet transform (Paul wavelet, order 1) of each voxel time course. Five different aspects of image quality and tumor delineation were each qualitatively rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative analysis included image contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio. RESULTS: Vessel-specific wavelet-MRP maps could be calculated within a mean time of 2:27 min. Wavelet-MRP achieved higher scores compared to CBV in all qualitative ratings: tumor depiction (4.02 vs. 2.33), contrast enhancement (3.93 vs. 2.23), central necrosis (3.86 vs. 2.40), morphologic correlation (3.87 vs. 2.24), and overall impression (4.00 vs. 2.41); all p < .001. Quantitative image analysis showed a better image contrast and higher contrast-to-noise ratios for wavelet-MRP compared to conventional perfusion maps (all p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: wavelet-MRP is a fast and fully automated post-processing technique that yields reproducible perfusion maps with a clearer vascular depiction of GBM compared to standard CBV maps. KEY POINTS: • Wavelet-MRP offers high-contrast perfusion maps with a clear delineation of focal perfusion alterations. • Both image contrast and visual image quality were beneficial for wavelet-MRP compared to standard perfusion maps like CBV. • Wavelet-MRP can be automatically calculated from existing dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion data.
OBJECTIVES: Parameter maps based on wavelet-transform post-processing of dynamic perfusion data offer an innovative way of visualizing blood vessels in a fully automated, user-independent way. The aims of this study were (i) a proof of concept regarding wavelet-based analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI data and (ii) to demonstrate advantages of wavelet-based measures compared to standard cerebral blood volume (CBV) maps in patients with the initial diagnosis of glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Consecutive 3-T DSC MRI datasets of 46 subjects with GBM (mean age 63.0 ± 13.1 years, 28 m) were retrospectively included in this feasibility study. Vessel-specific wavelet magnetic resonance perfusion (wavelet-MRP) maps were calculated using the wavelet transform (Paul wavelet, order 1) of each voxel time course. Five different aspects of image quality and tumor delineation were each qualitatively rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative analysis included image contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio. RESULTS: Vessel-specific wavelet-MRP maps could be calculated within a mean time of 2:27 min. Wavelet-MRP achieved higher scores compared to CBV in all qualitative ratings: tumor depiction (4.02 vs. 2.33), contrast enhancement (3.93 vs. 2.23), central necrosis (3.86 vs. 2.40), morphologic correlation (3.87 vs. 2.24), and overall impression (4.00 vs. 2.41); all p < .001. Quantitative image analysis showed a better image contrast and higher contrast-to-noise ratios for wavelet-MRP compared to conventional perfusion maps (all p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: wavelet-MRP is a fast and fully automated post-processing technique that yields reproducible perfusion maps with a clearer vascular depiction of GBM compared to standard CBV maps. KEY POINTS: • Wavelet-MRP offers high-contrast perfusion maps with a clear delineation of focal perfusion alterations. • Both image contrast and visual image quality were beneficial for wavelet-MRP compared to standard perfusion maps like CBV. • Wavelet-MRP can be automatically calculated from existing dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion data.
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Søren Christensen; Sarah J Foster; Patricia M Desmond; Mark W Parsons; Kenneth S Butcher; P Alan Barber; Christopher R Levi; Christopher F Bladin; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: R Singh; K Kesavabhotla; S A Kishore; Z Zhou; A J Tsiouris; C G Filippi; J A Boockvar; I Kovanlikaya Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L S Hu; Z Kelm; P Korfiatis; A C Dueck; C Elrod; B M Ellingson; T J Kaufmann; J M Eschbacher; J P Karis; K Smith; P Nakaji; D Brinkman; D Pafundi; L C Baxter; B J Erickson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Wolfgang G Kunz; Felix Schuler; Wieland H Sommer; Matthias P Fabritius; Lukas Havla; Felix G Meinel; Maximilian F Reiser; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Kolja M Thierfelder Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mojgan Hojjati; Chaitra Badve; Vasant Garg; Curtis Tatsuoka; Lisa Rogers; Andrew Sloan; Peter Faulhaber; Pablo R Ros; Leo J Wolansky Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 2.486