一种新型多相CTA灌注工具与CTP在疑似急性缺血性脑卒中患者中的比较验证

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) Pub Date : 2023-03-23 DOI:10.1161/svin.122.000811
F. Benali, Jianhai Zhang, Najratun Nayem Pinky, F. Bala, I. Alhabli, Rotem Golan, Luis A Souto Maior Neto, Ibukun Elebute, Chris C. Duszynski, Wu Qiu, B. Menon
{"title":"一种新型多相CTA灌注工具与CTP在疑似急性缺血性脑卒中患者中的比较验证","authors":"F. Benali, Jianhai Zhang, Najratun Nayem Pinky, F. Bala, I. Alhabli, Rotem Golan, Luis A Souto Maior Neto, Ibukun Elebute, Chris C. Duszynski, Wu Qiu, B. Menon","doi":"10.1161/svin.122.000811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n We recently developed a novel machine learning‐based algorithm using multiphase computed tomography angiography (mCTA) to generate perfusion maps of the brain, similar to computed tomography perfusion (CTP) (ie, multiphase CTA perfusion [mCTAp]). Here, we aim to validate the clinical utility of mCTAp in detection of brain ischemia and its side, extent, and location.\n \n \n \n \n In this prospective multi‐reader‐multi‐case analysis, we included baseline images: mCTAp (\n StrokeSENS\n ‐algorithm) and CTP (4D; GE Healthcare) from 121 randomly selected patients whose scans were not part of algorithm‐development. After excluding 2/121 scans because of poor image‐quality, 3 experienced radiologists read time to maximum, and relative cerebral blood flow‐maps generated by the test (mCTAp) and reference (CTP) modality. The 2 reading sessions were separated by 5 days although the reading order was randomized. Core laboratory imaging assessments – that used non contrast computed tomography, mCTA, and CTP – were considered as ground‐truth. A mixed‐effects statistical model with “reader” as random effects variable was used to calculate the area under the curve (with 95% CI), sensitivity, and specificity for both modalities (mCTAp/CTP) for ischemia detection, affected side, and occlusion location. The time required for interpretation and inter‐rater variability in assessments were compared across the 2 modalities.\n \n \n \n \n \n Area under the curves (95% CI) for detecting ischemia using mCTAp and CTP were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.8–0.9) and 0.84 (0.8–0.9) respectively (\n P\n =0.43). Area under the curves for the affected side were 0.94 (0.92–0.97) and 0.96 (0.94–0.98) (\n P\n =0.69), respectively; for detecting large vessel occlusion were 0.84 (0.8–0.9) and 0.86 (0.8–0.9), (\n P\n =0.31), respectively; M2‐or‐distal occlusion were 0.79 (0.73–0.84) and 0.88 (0.83–0.92) (\n P\n =0.22), respectively, for anterior cerebral artery‐occlusion 0.82 (0.66–0.98) and 0.93 (0.82–1.00) (\n P\n =0.15), respectively, and for posterior cerebral artery‐occlusions 0.9 (0.8–1) and 0.99 (0.98–0.99) (\n P\n =0.01), respectively. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time for image interpretation was 62 seconds (IQR, 46–78) and 59 seconds (IQR, 42–69) for mCTAp and CTP, respectively, (\n P\n =0.15). Fleiss` Kappa‐values for inter‐rater reliability in detecting ischemia were 0.5 and 0.8 for mCTAp and CTP, respectively.\n \n \n \n \n mCTAp shows similar performance and interpretation times compared to CTP in assisting readers to detect brain ischemia, affected side, and occlusion location, but mainly as it relates to proximal vessel occlusions. The proposed tool still needs further refinement for distal vessel occlusions. Nonetheless, mCTAp is a promising tool as it allows for acquisition of brain perfusion maps with lower radiation exposure, acquisition time, and contrast dose compared with additional CTP.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of a Novel Multiphase CTA Perfusion Tool Compared to CTP in Patients With Suspected Acute Ischemic Stroke\",\"authors\":\"F. Benali, Jianhai Zhang, Najratun Nayem Pinky, F. Bala, I. Alhabli, Rotem Golan, Luis A Souto Maior Neto, Ibukun Elebute, Chris C. Duszynski, Wu Qiu, B. Menon\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/svin.122.000811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n We recently developed a novel machine learning‐based algorithm using multiphase computed tomography angiography (mCTA) to generate perfusion maps of the brain, similar to computed tomography perfusion (CTP) (ie, multiphase CTA perfusion [mCTAp]). Here, we aim to validate the clinical utility of mCTAp in detection of brain ischemia and its side, extent, and location.\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n In this prospective multi‐reader‐multi‐case analysis, we included baseline images: mCTAp (\\n StrokeSENS\\n ‐algorithm) and CTP (4D; GE Healthcare) from 121 randomly selected patients whose scans were not part of algorithm‐development. After excluding 2/121 scans because of poor image‐quality, 3 experienced radiologists read time to maximum, and relative cerebral blood flow‐maps generated by the test (mCTAp) and reference (CTP) modality. The 2 reading sessions were separated by 5 days although the reading order was randomized. Core laboratory imaging assessments – that used non contrast computed tomography, mCTA, and CTP – were considered as ground‐truth. A mixed‐effects statistical model with “reader” as random effects variable was used to calculate the area under the curve (with 95% CI), sensitivity, and specificity for both modalities (mCTAp/CTP) for ischemia detection, affected side, and occlusion location. The time required for interpretation and inter‐rater variability in assessments were compared across the 2 modalities.\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n Area under the curves (95% CI) for detecting ischemia using mCTAp and CTP were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.8–0.9) and 0.84 (0.8–0.9) respectively (\\n P\\n =0.43). Area under the curves for the affected side were 0.94 (0.92–0.97) and 0.96 (0.94–0.98) (\\n P\\n =0.69), respectively; for detecting large vessel occlusion were 0.84 (0.8–0.9) and 0.86 (0.8–0.9), (\\n P\\n =0.31), respectively; M2‐or‐distal occlusion were 0.79 (0.73–0.84) and 0.88 (0.83–0.92) (\\n P\\n =0.22), respectively, for anterior cerebral artery‐occlusion 0.82 (0.66–0.98) and 0.93 (0.82–1.00) (\\n P\\n =0.15), respectively, and for posterior cerebral artery‐occlusions 0.9 (0.8–1) and 0.99 (0.98–0.99) (\\n P\\n =0.01), respectively. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time for image interpretation was 62 seconds (IQR, 46–78) and 59 seconds (IQR, 42–69) for mCTAp and CTP, respectively, (\\n P\\n =0.15). Fleiss` Kappa‐values for inter‐rater reliability in detecting ischemia were 0.5 and 0.8 for mCTAp and CTP, respectively.\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n mCTAp shows similar performance and interpretation times compared to CTP in assisting readers to detect brain ischemia, affected side, and occlusion location, but mainly as it relates to proximal vessel occlusions. The proposed tool still needs further refinement for distal vessel occlusions. Nonetheless, mCTAp is a promising tool as it allows for acquisition of brain perfusion maps with lower radiation exposure, acquisition time, and contrast dose compared with additional CTP.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":74875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.122.000811\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.122.000811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们最近开发了一种新的基于机器学习的算法,使用多相计算机断层摄影血管造影术(mCTA)生成大脑灌注图,类似于计算机断层摄影灌注(CTP)(即多相CTA灌注[mCTAp])。在此,我们旨在验证mCTAp在检测脑缺血及其侧面、范围和位置方面的临床实用性。在这项前瞻性多读者多病例分析中,我们纳入了121名随机选择的患者的基线图像:mCTAp(StrokeSENS算法)和CTP(4D;GE Healthcare),这些患者的扫描不属于算法开发的一部分。由于图像质量差,排除了2/121次扫描后,3名经验丰富的放射科医生读取了测试(mCTAp)和参考(CTP)模式生成的最大时间和相对脑血流图。两次阅读间隔5天,尽管阅读顺序是随机的。使用非对比度计算机断层扫描、mCTA和CTP的核心实验室成像评估被认为是基本事实。以“阅读器”为随机效应变量的混合效应统计模型用于计算曲线下面积(95%CI)、两种模式的敏感性和特异性(mCTAp/CTP),用于缺血检测、受影响侧和闭塞位置。比较了两种模式下评估中解释所需的时间和评分者间的可变性。使用mCTAp和CTP检测缺血的曲线下面积(95%CI)分别为0.85(95%CI,0.8-0.9)和0.84(0.8-0.9;检测大血管闭塞的比值分别为0.84(0.8–0.9)和0.86(0.8–0.9%)(P=0.31);M2或远端闭塞分别为0.79(0.73–0.84)和0.88(0.83–0.92)(P=0.022),大脑前动脉闭塞分别为0.82(0.66–0.98)和0.93(0.82–1.00)(P=0.015),大脑后动脉闭塞分别是0.9(0.8–1)和0.99(0.98–0.99)(P=0.01)。对于mCTAp和CTP,图像解释的中位(四分位间距[IQR])时间分别为62秒(IQR,46–78)和59秒(IQR,42–69),(P=0.15)。mCTAp与CTP检测缺血的评分者间可靠性Fleiss`Kappa值分别为0.5和0.8。与CTP相比,mCTAp在帮助读者检测脑缺血、受累侧和闭塞位置方面表现出类似的性能和解释时间,但主要是因为它与近端血管闭塞有关。对于远端血管闭塞,所提出的工具仍需要进一步改进。尽管如此,mCTAp是一种很有前途的工具,因为与额外的CTP相比,它可以以更低的辐射暴露、采集时间和对比剂剂量采集脑灌注图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation of a Novel Multiphase CTA Perfusion Tool Compared to CTP in Patients With Suspected Acute Ischemic Stroke
We recently developed a novel machine learning‐based algorithm using multiphase computed tomography angiography (mCTA) to generate perfusion maps of the brain, similar to computed tomography perfusion (CTP) (ie, multiphase CTA perfusion [mCTAp]). Here, we aim to validate the clinical utility of mCTAp in detection of brain ischemia and its side, extent, and location. In this prospective multi‐reader‐multi‐case analysis, we included baseline images: mCTAp ( StrokeSENS ‐algorithm) and CTP (4D; GE Healthcare) from 121 randomly selected patients whose scans were not part of algorithm‐development. After excluding 2/121 scans because of poor image‐quality, 3 experienced radiologists read time to maximum, and relative cerebral blood flow‐maps generated by the test (mCTAp) and reference (CTP) modality. The 2 reading sessions were separated by 5 days although the reading order was randomized. Core laboratory imaging assessments – that used non contrast computed tomography, mCTA, and CTP – were considered as ground‐truth. A mixed‐effects statistical model with “reader” as random effects variable was used to calculate the area under the curve (with 95% CI), sensitivity, and specificity for both modalities (mCTAp/CTP) for ischemia detection, affected side, and occlusion location. The time required for interpretation and inter‐rater variability in assessments were compared across the 2 modalities. Area under the curves (95% CI) for detecting ischemia using mCTAp and CTP were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.8–0.9) and 0.84 (0.8–0.9) respectively ( P =0.43). Area under the curves for the affected side were 0.94 (0.92–0.97) and 0.96 (0.94–0.98) ( P =0.69), respectively; for detecting large vessel occlusion were 0.84 (0.8–0.9) and 0.86 (0.8–0.9), ( P =0.31), respectively; M2‐or‐distal occlusion were 0.79 (0.73–0.84) and 0.88 (0.83–0.92) ( P =0.22), respectively, for anterior cerebral artery‐occlusion 0.82 (0.66–0.98) and 0.93 (0.82–1.00) ( P =0.15), respectively, and for posterior cerebral artery‐occlusions 0.9 (0.8–1) and 0.99 (0.98–0.99) ( P =0.01), respectively. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time for image interpretation was 62 seconds (IQR, 46–78) and 59 seconds (IQR, 42–69) for mCTAp and CTP, respectively, ( P =0.15). Fleiss` Kappa‐values for inter‐rater reliability in detecting ischemia were 0.5 and 0.8 for mCTAp and CTP, respectively. mCTAp shows similar performance and interpretation times compared to CTP in assisting readers to detect brain ischemia, affected side, and occlusion location, but mainly as it relates to proximal vessel occlusions. The proposed tool still needs further refinement for distal vessel occlusions. Nonetheless, mCTAp is a promising tool as it allows for acquisition of brain perfusion maps with lower radiation exposure, acquisition time, and contrast dose compared with additional CTP.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Therapy Effectiveness for Unruptured Saccular Intracranial Aneurysms. Large, Wide-Neck, Side-Wall Aneurysm Treatment in Canines Using NeuroCURE: A Novel Liquid Embolic. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual CLOTS Meeting: CLOTS 7.0, Madrid, Spain Catching Up With Time: Endovascular Treatment Beyond 24 Hours Can Aneurysm Wall Radiomics Help Predict Rupture Risk?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1