Manuel Alexander Schmidt1, Michael Knott1, Philip Hoelter1, Tobias Engelhorn1, Elna Marie Larsson2, Than Nguyen3, Marco Essig1,4, Arnd Doerfler1. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, SE-75185 Uppsala, Radiology, Sweden. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Canada. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine; GA216-820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: MR-perfusion post-processing still lacks standardization. This study evaluates the results of perfusion analysis with two established software solutions in a large series of patients with different diseases when a highly standardized processing workflow is ensured. METHODS: Multicenter data of 260 patients (80 with brain tumors, 124 with cerebrovascular disease and 56 with dementia examined with the same MR protocol) were analyzed. Raw data sets were processed with two software suites: Olea sphere and NordicICE. Group differences were analyzed with paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Perfusion metrics were significantly different for all examined diseases in the unaffected brain for both software suites [ratio cortex/white matter left hemisphere: mean transit time (MTT) 0.991 vs 0.847, p < 0.05; relative cerebral bloodflow (rBF) 3.23 vs 4.418, p < 0.001; relative cerebral bloodvolume (rBVc) 2.813 vs 3.884, p < 0.001; right hemisphere: MTT 1.079 vs 0.854, p < 0.05; rBF 3.262 vs 4.378, p < 0.001; rBVc 2.762 vs 3.935, p < 0.001)]. Perfusion results were also significantly different in patients with stroke (ratio cortex/white matter affected hemisphere: MTT 1.058 vs 0.784; p < 0.001), dementia (ratio cortex/white matter left hemisphere: rBVc 1.152 vs 1.795, p < 0.001; right hemisphere: rBVc 1.396 vs 1.662, p < 0.05) and brain tumors (ratio cortex/whole tumor rBVc: 0.778 vs 0.919, p < 0.001 and ratio cortex/tumor hotspot rBVc: 0.529 vs 0.512, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite a highly standardized workflow, parametric perfusion maps are depended on the chosen software. Radiologists should consider software related variances when using dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion for clinical imaging and research. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This multicenter study compared perfusion parameters calculated by two commercial dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion post-processing software solutions in different central nervous system disorders with a large sample size and a highly standardized processing workflow. Despite, parametric perfusion maps are depended on the chosen software which impacts clinical imaging and research.
OBJECTIVE: MR-perfusion post-processing still lacks standardization. This study evaluates the results of perfusion analysis with two established software solutions in a large series of patients with different diseases when a highly standardized processing workflow is ensured. METHODS: Multicenter data of 260 patients (80 with brain tumors, 124 with cerebrovascular disease and 56 with dementia examined with the same MR protocol) were analyzed. Raw data sets were processed with two software suites: Olea sphere and NordicICE. Group differences were analyzed with paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Perfusion metrics were significantly different for all examined diseases in the unaffected brain for both software suites [ratio cortex/white matter left hemisphere: mean transit time (MTT) 0.991 vs 0.847, p < 0.05; relative cerebral bloodflow (rBF) 3.23 vs 4.418, p < 0.001; relative cerebral bloodvolume (rBVc) 2.813 vs 3.884, p < 0.001; right hemisphere: MTT 1.079 vs 0.854, p < 0.05; rBF 3.262 vs 4.378, p < 0.001; rBVc 2.762 vs 3.935, p < 0.001)]. Perfusion results were also significantly different in patients with stroke (ratio cortex/white matter affected hemisphere: MTT 1.058 vs 0.784; p < 0.001), dementia (ratio cortex/white matter left hemisphere: rBVc 1.152 vs 1.795, p < 0.001; right hemisphere: rBVc 1.396 vs 1.662, p < 0.05) and brain tumors (ratio cortex/whole tumor rBVc: 0.778 vs 0.919, p < 0.001 and ratio cortex/tumor hotspot rBVc: 0.529 vs 0.512, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite a highly standardized workflow, parametric perfusion maps are depended on the chosen software. Radiologists should consider software related variances when using dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion for clinical imaging and research. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This multicenter study compared perfusion parameters calculated by two commercial dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion post-processing software solutions in different central nervous system disorders with a large sample size and a highly standardized processing workflow. Despite, parametric perfusion maps are depended on the chosen software which impacts clinical imaging and research.
Authors: Ona Wu; Leif Østergaard; Robert M Weisskoff; Thomas Benner; Bruce R Rosen; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Simon F Eskildsen; Louise Gyldensted; Kartheeban Nagenthiraja; Rune B Nielsen; Mikkel Bo Hansen; Rikke B Dalby; Jesper Frandsen; Anders Rodell; Carsten Gyldensted; Sune N Jespersen; Torben E Lund; Kim Mouridsen; Hans Brændgaard; Leif Østergaard Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2016-11-19 Impact factor: 4.673