Friederike Austein1, Fritz Wodarg2, Nora Jürgensen2, Monika Huhndorf2, Johannes Meyne3, Thomas Lindner2, Olav Jansen2, Naomi Larsen2, Christian Riedel2. 1. Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital, Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany. friederike.austein@uksh.de. 2. Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital, Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany. 3. Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of our study was to compare the agreement of both the total Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and region-based scores from two automated ASPECTS software packages and an expert consensus (EC) reading with final ASPECTS in a selected cohort of patients who had prompt reperfusion from endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). METHODS: ASPECTS were retrospectively and blindly assessed by two software packages and EC on baseline non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) images. All patients had multimodal CT imaging including NCCT, CT angiography, and CT perfusion which demonstrated an acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke with a large vessel occlusion. Final ASPECTS on follow-up scans in patients who had EVT and achieved complete reperfusion within 100 min from NCCT served as ground truth and were compared to total and region-based scores. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients met our study criteria. Moderate agreement was obtained between both software packages and EC for total ASPECTS and there was no significant difference in overall performance. However, the software packages differed with respect to regional contribution. In this cohort, the majority of infarcted regions were deep structures. Package A was more sensitive in cortical areas than the other methods, but at a cost of specificity. EC and software package B had greater sensitivity, but lower specificity for deep brain structures. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, using the final ASPECTS as ground truth, no clinically significant difference was observed for total ASPECT score between human or automated packages, but there were differences in the characteristics of the regions scored. KEY POINTS: • Some national stroke guidelines have incorporated ASPECTS in their recommendations for selecting patients for endovascular therapy. • Computer-aided diagnosis is a promising tool to aid the evaluation of early ischemic changes identified on CT. • Software packages for automated ASPECTS assessment differed significantly with respect to regional contribution without any significant difference in the overall ASPECT score.
AIM: The purpose of our study was to compare the agreement of both the total Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and region-based scores from two automated ASPECTS software packages and an expert consensus (EC) reading with final ASPECTS in a selected cohort of patients who had prompt reperfusion from endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). METHODS: ASPECTS were retrospectively and blindly assessed by two software packages and EC on baseline non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) images. All patients had multimodal CT imaging including NCCT, CT angiography, and CT perfusion which demonstrated an acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke with a large vessel occlusion. Final ASPECTS on follow-up scans in patients who had EVT and achieved complete reperfusion within 100 min from NCCT served as ground truth and were compared to total and region-based scores. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients met our study criteria. Moderate agreement was obtained between both software packages and EC for total ASPECTS and there was no significant difference in overall performance. However, the software packages differed with respect to regional contribution. In this cohort, the majority of infarcted regions were deep structures. Package A was more sensitive in cortical areas than the other methods, but at a cost of specificity. EC and software package B had greater sensitivity, but lower specificity for deep brain structures. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, using the final ASPECTS as ground truth, no clinically significant difference was observed for total ASPECT score between human or automated packages, but there were differences in the characteristics of the regions scored. KEY POINTS: • Some national stroke guidelines have incorporated ASPECTS in their recommendations for selecting patients for endovascular therapy. • Computer-aided diagnosis is a promising tool to aid the evaluation of early ischemic changes identified on CT. • Software packages for automated ASPECTS assessment differed significantly with respect to regional contribution without any significant difference in the overall ASPECT score.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Fatih Seker; Johannes Pfaff; Simon Nagel; Dominik Vollherbst; Stephen Gerry; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Martin Bendszus; Christian Herweh Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Simon Nagel; Devesh Sinha; Diana Day; Wolfgang Reith; René Chapot; Panagiotis Papanagiotou; Elizabeth A Warburton; Paul Guyler; Sharon Tysoe; Klaus Fassbender; Silke Walter; Marco Essig; Jens Heidenrich; Angelos A Konstas; Michael Harrison; Michalis Papadakis; Eric Greveson; Olivier Joly; Stephen Gerry; Holly Maguire; Christine Roffe; James Hampton-Till; Alastair M Buchan; Iris Q Grunwald Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: J H Pexman; P A Barber; M D Hill; R J Sevick; A M Demchuk; M E Hudon; W Y Hu; A M Buchan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Christian Herweh; Peter A Ringleb; Geraldine Rauch; Steven Gerry; Lars Behrens; Markus Möhlenbruch; Rebecca Gottorf; Daniel Richter; Simon Schieber; Simon Nagel Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Sunil A Sheth; Konark Malhotra; David S Liebeskind; Conrad W Liang; Albert J Yoo; Reza Jahan; Raul G Nogueira; Vitor Pereira; Jan Gralla; Greg Albers; Mayank Goyal; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Interv Neurol Date: 2018-09-03
Authors: William J Powers; Colin P Derdeyn; José Biller; Christopher S Coffey; Brian L Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Karen C Johnston; S Claiborne Johnston; Alexander A Khalessi; Chelsea S Kidwell; James F Meschia; Bruce Ovbiagele; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Waleed Brinjikji; Mehdi Abbasi; Catherine Arnold; John C Benson; Sherry A Braksick; Norbert Campeau; Carrie M Carr; Petrice M Cogswell; James P Klaas; Greta B Liebo; Jason T Little; Patrick H Luetmer; Steven A Messina; Alex A Nagelschneider; Kara M Schwartz; Christopher P Wood; Deena M Nasr; David F Kallmes Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Kamil Zeleňák; Antonín Krajina; Lukas Meyer; Jens Fiehler; Daniel Behme; Deniz Bulja; Jildaz Caroff; Amar Ajay Chotai; Valerio Da Ros; Jean-Christophe Gentric; Jeremy Hofmeister; Omar Kass-Hout; Özcan Kocatürk; Jeremy Lynch; Ernesto Pearson; Ivan Vukasinovic Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2021-05-27