Hannes Deutschmann1, Nicole Hinteregger1, Ulrike Wießpeiner1, Markus Kneihsl2, Simon Fandler-Höfler2, Manuela Michenthaler1, Christian Enzinger1,2, Eva Hassler1, Stefan Leber1, Gernot Reishofer3. 1. Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology, Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 9, 8036, Graz, Austria. 2. Department of Neurology, Division of General Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 22, 8036, Graz, Austria. 3. Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology, Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 9, 8036, Graz, Austria. gernot.reishofer@medunigraz.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare two established software applications in terms of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) lesion volumes, volume of critically hypoperfused brain tissue, and calculated volumes of perfusion-diffusion mismatch in brain MRI of patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Brain MRI examinations of 81 patients with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation were analyzed. The volume of hypoperfused brain tissue, ADC volume, and the volume of perfusion-diffusion mismatch were calculated automatically with two different software packages. The calculated parameters were compared quantitatively using formal statistics. RESULTS: Significant difference was found for the volume of hypoperfused tissue (median 91.0 ml vs. 102.2 ml; p < 0.05) and the ADC volume (median 30.0 ml vs. 23.9 ml; p < 0.05) between different software packages. The volume of the perfusion-diffusion mismatch differed significantly (median 47.0 ml vs. 67.2 ml; p < 0.05). Evaluation of the results on a single-subject basis revealed a mean absolute difference of 20.5 ml for hypoperfused tissue, 10.8 ml for ADC volumes, and 27.6 ml for mismatch volumes, respectively. Application of the DEFUSE 3 threshold of 70 ml infarction core would have resulted in dissenting treatment decisions in 6/81 (7.4%) patients. CONCLUSION: Volume segmentation in different software products may lead to significantly different results in the individual patient and may thus seriously influence the decision for or against mechanical thrombectomy. KEY POINTS: • Automated calculation of MRI perfusion-diffusion mismatch helps clinicians to apply inclusion and exclusion criteria derived from randomized trials. • Infarct volume segmentation plays a crucial role and lead to significantly different result for different computer programs. • Perfusion-diffusion mismatch estimation from different computer programs may influence the decision for or against mechanical thrombectomy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two established software applications in terms of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) lesion volumes, volume of critically hypoperfused brain tissue, and calculated volumes of perfusion-diffusion mismatch in brain MRI of patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Brain MRI examinations of 81 patients with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation were analyzed. The volume of hypoperfused brain tissue, ADC volume, and the volume of perfusion-diffusion mismatch were calculated automatically with two different software packages. The calculated parameters were compared quantitatively using formal statistics. RESULTS: Significant difference was found for the volume of hypoperfused tissue (median 91.0 ml vs. 102.2 ml; p < 0.05) and the ADC volume (median 30.0 ml vs. 23.9 ml; p < 0.05) between different software packages. The volume of the perfusion-diffusion mismatch differed significantly (median 47.0 ml vs. 67.2 ml; p < 0.05). Evaluation of the results on a single-subject basis revealed a mean absolute difference of 20.5 ml for hypoperfused tissue, 10.8 ml for ADC volumes, and 27.6 ml for mismatch volumes, respectively. Application of the DEFUSE 3 threshold of 70 ml infarction core would have resulted in dissenting treatment decisions in 6/81 (7.4%) patients. CONCLUSION: Volume segmentation in different software products may lead to significantly different results in the individual patient and may thus seriously influence the decision for or against mechanical thrombectomy. KEY POINTS: • Automated calculation of MRI perfusion-diffusion mismatch helps clinicians to apply inclusion and exclusion criteria derived from randomized trials. • Infarct volume segmentation plays a crucial role and lead to significantly different result for different computer programs. • Perfusion-diffusion mismatch estimation from different computer programs may influence the decision for or against mechanical thrombectomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Brain; Magnetic resonance imaging; Software; Stroke; Thrombectomy
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Søren Christensen; Christopher R Levi; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis; Mark W Parsons Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Archana Purushotham; Bruce C V Campbell; Matus Straka; Michael Mlynash; Jean-Marc Olivot; Roland Bammer; Stephanie M Kemp; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Adrien Guenego; Pascal J Mosimann; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Patrick Nicholson; Kevin Zuber; Jean Albert Lotterie; Tomas Dobrocky; David G Marcellus; Jean Marc Olivot; Michel Piotin; Jan Gralla; Robert Fahed; Max Wintermark; Jeremy J Heit; Christophe Cognard Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olvert A Berkhemer; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Lucie A van den Berg; Hester F Lingsma; Albert J Yoo; Wouter J Schonewille; Jan Albert Vos; Paul J Nederkoorn; Marieke J H Wermer; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Julie Staals; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Jacques A van Oostayen; Geert J Lycklama à Nijeholt; Jelis Boiten; Patrick A Brouwer; Bart J Emmer; Sebastiaan F de Bruijn; Lukas C van Dijk; L Jaap Kappelle; Rob H Lo; Ewoud J van Dijk; Joost de Vries; Paul L M de Kort; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Jan S P van den Berg; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Leo A M Aerden; René J Dallinga; Marieke C Visser; Joseph C J Bot; Patrick C Vroomen; Omid Eshghi; Tobien H C M L Schreuder; Roel J J Heijboer; Koos Keizer; Alexander V Tielbeek; Heleen M den Hertog; Dick G Gerrits; Renske M van den Berg-Vos; Giorgos B Karas; Ewout W Steyerberg; H Zwenneke Flach; Henk A Marquering; Marieke E S Sprengers; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Ludo F M Beenen; René van den Berg; Peter J Koudstaal; Wim H van Zwam; Yvo B W E M Roos; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Charles B L M Majoie; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey Gornbein; Jeffry R Alger; Val Nenov; Zahra Ajani; Lei Feng; Brett C Meyer; Scott Olson; Lee H Schwamm; Albert J Yoo; Randolph S Marshall; Philip M Meyers; Dileep R Yavagal; Max Wintermark; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anke Wouters; Søren Christensen; Matus Straka; Michael Mlynash; John Liggins; Roland Bammer; Vincent Thijs; Robin Lemmens; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Lehel Lakatos; Manuel Bolognese; Martin Müller; Mareike Österreich; Alexander von Hessling Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.086