European journal of radiology · 2012
Validation and absolute quantification of MR perfusion compared with CT perfusion in patients with unilateral cerebral arterial stenosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chiu Fang-Ying, Kao Yi-Hsuan, Teng Michael Mu Huo, Chung Hsiao-Wen, Chang Feng-Chi, Cho I-Chieh, Chen Wen-Chun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess absolute quantification of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance perfusion (MRP) comparing with computed tomography perfusion (CTP) in patients with unilateral stenosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively post-processed MRP in 20 patients with unilateral occlusion or stenosis of >79% at the internal carotid artery or the middle cerebral artery (MCA). Absolute quantification of MRP was performed after applying the following techniques: cerebrospinal fluid removal, vessel removal, and automatic segmentation of brain to calculate the scaling factors to convert relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) values to absolute values. For comparison between MRP and CTP, we manually deposited regions of interest in bilateral MCA territories at the level containing the body of the lateral ventricle.
RESULTS: The correlation between MRP and CTP was best for mean transit time (MTT) (r=0.83), followed by cerebral blood flow (CBF) (r=0.52) and cerebral blood volume (CBV) (r=0.43). There was no significant difference between CTP and MRP for CBV, CBF, and MTT on the lesion side, the contralateral side, the lesion-contralateral differences, or the lesion-to-contralateral ratios (P>0.05). The mean differences between MRP and CTP were as follows: CBV -0.57 mL/100g, CBF 2.50 mL/100g/min, and MTT -0.90 s.
CONCLUSION: Absolute quantification of MRP is possible. Using the proposed method, measured values of MRP and CTP had acceptable linear correlation and quantitative agreement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively post-processed MRP in 20 patients with unilateral occlusion or stenosis of >79% at the internal carotid artery or the middle cerebral artery (MCA). Absolute quantification of MRP was performed after applying the following techniques: cerebrospinal fluid removal, vessel removal, and automatic segmentation of brain to calculate the scaling factors to convert relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) values to absolute values. For comparison between MRP and CTP, we manually deposited regions of interest in bilateral MCA territories at the level containing the body of the lateral ventricle.
RESULTS: The correlation between MRP and CTP was best for mean transit time (MTT) (r=0.83), followed by cerebral blood flow (CBF) (r=0.52) and cerebral blood volume (CBV) (r=0.43). There was no significant difference between CTP and MRP for CBV, CBF, and MTT on the lesion side, the contralateral side, the lesion-contralateral differences, or the lesion-to-contralateral ratios (P>0.05). The mean differences between MRP and CTP were as follows: CBV -0.57 mL/100g, CBF 2.50 mL/100g/min, and MTT -0.90 s.
CONCLUSION: Absolute quantification of MRP is possible. Using the proposed method, measured values of MRP and CTP had acceptable linear correlation and quantitative agreement.