PURPOSE: Assessing the rupture probability of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remains challenging. Therefore, hemodynamic simulations are increasingly applied toward supporting physicians during treatment planning. However, due to several assumptions, the clinical acceptance of these methods remains limited. METHODS: To provide an overview of state-of-the-art blood flow simulation capabilities, the Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH) was conducted. Seventeen research groups from all over the world performed segmentations and hemodynamic simulations to identify the ruptured aneurysm in a patient harboring five IAs. Although simulation setups revealed good similarity, clear differences exist with respect to the analysis of aneurysm shape and blood flow results. Most groups (12/71%) included morphological and hemodynamic parameters in their analysis, with aspect ratio and wall shear stress as the most popular candidates, respectively. RESULTS: The majority of groups (7/41%) selected the largest aneurysm as being the ruptured one. Four (24%) of the participating groups were able to correctly select the ruptured aneurysm, while three groups (18%) ranked the ruptured aneurysm as the second most probable. Successful selections were based on the integration of clinically relevant information such as the aneurysm site, as well as advanced rupture probability models considering multiple parameters. Additionally, flow characteristics such as the quantification of inflow jets and the identification of multiple vortices led to correct predictions. CONCLUSIONS: MATCH compares state-of-the-art image-based blood flow simulation approaches to assess the rupture risk of IAs. Furthermore, this challenge highlights the importance of multivariate analyses by combining clinically relevant metadata with advanced morphological and hemodynamic quantification.
PURPOSE: Assessing the rupture probability of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remains challenging. Therefore, hemodynamic simulations are increasingly applied toward supporting physicians during treatment planning. However, due to several assumptions, the clinical acceptance of these methods remains limited. METHODS: To provide an overview of state-of-the-art blood flow simulation capabilities, the Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH) was conducted. Seventeen research groups from all over the world performed segmentations and hemodynamic simulations to identify the ruptured aneurysm in a patient harboring five IAs. Although simulation setups revealed good similarity, clear differences exist with respect to the analysis of aneurysm shape and blood flow results. Most groups (12/71%) included morphological and hemodynamic parameters in their analysis, with aspect ratio and wall shear stress as the most popular candidates, respectively. RESULTS: The majority of groups (7/41%) selected the largest aneurysm as being the ruptured one. Four (24%) of the participating groups were able to correctly select the ruptured aneurysm, while three groups (18%) ranked the ruptured aneurysm as the second most probable. Successful selections were based on the integration of clinically relevant information such as the aneurysm site, as well as advanced rupture probability models considering multiple parameters. Additionally, flow characteristics such as the quantification of inflow jets and the identification of multiple vortices led to correct predictions. CONCLUSIONS: MATCH compares state-of-the-art image-based blood flow simulation approaches to assess the rupture risk of IAs. Furthermore, this challenge highlights the importance of multivariate analyses by combining clinically relevant metadata with advanced morphological and hemodynamic quantification.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hemodynamic simulation; International challenge; Intracranial aneurysm; Rupture risk
Authors: Philipp Berg; Christoph Roloff; Oliver Beuing; Samuel Voss; Shin-Ichiro Sugiyama; Nicolas Aristokleous; Andreas S Anayiotos; Neil Ashton; Alistair Revell; Neil W Bressloff; Alistair G Brown; Bong Jae Chung; Juan R Cebral; Gabriele Copelli; Wenyu Fu; Aike Qiao; Arjan J Geers; Simona Hodis; Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Emily Nordahl; Yildirim Bora Suzen; Muhammad Owais Khan; Kristian Valen-Sendstad; Kenichi Kono; Prahlad G Menon; Priti G Albal; Otto Mierka; Raphael Münster; Hernán G Morales; Odile Bonnefous; Jan Osman; Leonid Goubergrits; Jordi Pallares; Salvatore Cito; Alberto Passalacqua; Senol Piskin; Kerem Pekkan; Susana Ramalho; Nelson Marques; Stéphane Sanchi; Kristopher R Schumacher; Jess Sturgeon; Helena Švihlová; Jaroslav Hron; Gabriel Usera; Mariana Mendina; Jianping Xiang; Hui Meng; David A Steinman; Gábor Janiga Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Felicitas J Detmer; Bong Jae Chung; Fernando Mut; Michael Pritz; Martin Slawski; Farid Hamzei-Sichani; David Kallmes; Christopher Putman; Carlos Jimenez; Juan R Cebral Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Jianping Xiang; Sabareesh K Natarajan; Markus Tremmel; Ding Ma; J Mocco; L Nelson Hopkins; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Hui Meng Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Loic Boussel; Vitaliy Rayz; Charles McCulloch; Alastair Martin; Gabriel Acevedo-Bolton; Michael Lawton; Randall Higashida; Wade S Smith; William L Young; David Saloner Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: H Rajabzadeh-Oghaz; J Wang; N Varble; S-I Sugiyama; A Shimizu; L Jing; J Liu; X Yang; A H Siddiqui; J M Davies; H Meng Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.825
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