P Shahrouki1, R Gupta2, P Belani2, A Chien1, A H Doshi2, R De Leacy3, J T Fifi3, J Mocco3, K Nael4,2. 1. From the Department of Radiological Sciences (P.S., A.C., K.N.), University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Radiology (R.G., P.B., A.D., K.N.), Icahn School of Medicine at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York. 3. Department of Neurosurgery (R.D.L., J,F., J.M.), Icahn School of Medicine at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York. 4. From the Department of Radiological Sciences (P.S., A.C., K.N.), University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California kambiznael@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differential Subsampling with Cartesian Ordering (DISCO), an ultrafast high-spatial-resolution head MRA, has been introduced. We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of DISCO-MRA in grading residual aneurysm in comparison with TOF-MRA in patients with treated intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with endovascular treatment and having undergone DISCO-MRA, TOF-MRA, and DSA were included for review. The voxel size and acquisition time were 0.75 × 0.75 × 1 mm3/6 seconds for DISCO-MRA and 0.6 × 0.6 × 1 mm3/6 minutes for TOF-MRA. Residual aneurysms were determined using the Modified Raymond-Roy Classification on TOF-MRA and DISCO-MRA by 2 neuroradiologists independently and were compared against DSA as the reference standard. Statistical analysis was performed using the κ statistic and the χ2 test. RESULTS: Sixty-eight treated intracranial aneurysms were included. The intermodality agreement was κ = 0.82 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) between DISCO and DSA and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28-0.61) between TOF and DSA. Modified Raymond-Roy Classification scores matched DSA scores in 60/68 cases (88%; χ2 = 144.4, P < .001 for DISCO and 46/68 cases (68%; χ2 = 65.0, P < .001) for TOF. The diagnostic accuracy for the detection of aneurysm remnants was higher for DISCO (0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99) than for TOF (0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with endovascularly treated intracranial aneurysms, DISCO-MRA provides superior diagnostic performance in comparison with TOF-MRA in delineating residual aneurysms in a fraction of the time.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differential Subsampling with Cartesian Ordering (DISCO), an ultrafast high-spatial-resolution head MRA, has been introduced. We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of DISCO-MRA in grading residual aneurysm in comparison with TOF-MRA in patients with treated intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with endovascular treatment and having undergone DISCO-MRA, TOF-MRA, and DSA were included for review. The voxel size and acquisition time were 0.75 × 0.75 × 1 mm3/6 seconds for DISCO-MRA and 0.6 × 0.6 × 1 mm3/6 minutes for TOF-MRA. Residual aneurysms were determined using the Modified Raymond-Roy Classification on TOF-MRA and DISCO-MRA by 2 neuroradiologists independently and were compared against DSA as the reference standard. Statistical analysis was performed using the κ statistic and the χ2 test. RESULTS: Sixty-eight treated intracranial aneurysms were included. The intermodality agreement was κ = 0.82 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) between DISCO and DSA and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28-0.61) between TOF and DSA. Modified Raymond-Roy Classification scores matched DSA scores in 60/68 cases (88%; χ2 = 144.4, P < .001 for DISCO and 46/68 cases (68%; χ2 = 65.0, P < .001) for TOF. The diagnostic accuracy for the detection of aneurysm remnants was higher for DISCO (0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99) than for TOF (0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with endovascularly treated intracranial aneurysms, DISCO-MRA provides superior diagnostic performance in comparison with TOF-MRA in delineating residual aneurysms in a fraction of the time.
Authors: Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Houchun H Hu; Andrew V Barger; Clifton R Haider; David G Kruger; James F Glockner; John Huston; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: M J van Amerongen; H D Boogaarts; J de Vries; A L M Verbeek; F J A Meijer; M Prokop; R H M A Bartels Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R P Lim; M Shapiro; E Y Wang; M Law; J S Babb; L E Rueff; J S Jacob; S Kim; R H Carson; T P Mulholland; G Laub; E M Hecht Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrew Molyneux; Richard Kerr; Irene Stratton; Peter Sandercock; Mike Clarke; Julia Shrimpton; Rury Holman Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christopher J Stapleton; Collin M Torok; James D Rabinov; Brian P Walcott; Justin R Mascitelli; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Joshua A Hirsch; Albert J Yoo; Christopher S Ogilvy; Aman B Patel Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Olivier N Naggara; Phil M White; François Guilbert; Daniel Roy; Alain Weill; Jean Raymond Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jean Raymond; François Guilbert; Alain Weill; Stavros A Georganos; Louis Juravsky; Anick Lambert; Julie Lamoureux; Miguel Chagnon; Daniel Roy Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 7.914