Automated vs manual delineations of regions of interest- a comparison in commercially available perfusion MRI software

BMC Medical Imaging

Research Article

Helena Bros¹  Ivana Galinovic¹  Benjamin Hotter¹  Jochen B Fiebach¹  Peter Brunecker¹  Carina Soemmer²  Ann-Christin Ostwaldt³ 

[1] Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Germany;Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany;International Graduate Program Medical Neurosciences, Charite-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Luisenstrasse 56, 10117, Berlin, Germany;

关键词: Magnetic resonance imaging;    Perfusion MRI;    Acute ischemic stroke;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2342-12-16

 received in 2011-08-24, accepted in 2012-05-21,  发布年份 2012

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundIn perfusion magnetic resonance imaging a manual approach to delineation of regions of interest is, due to rater bias and time intensive operator input, clinically less favorable than an automated approach would be. The goal of our study was to compare the performances of these approaches.MethodsUsing Stroketool, PMA and Perfscape/Neuroscape perfusion maps of cerebral blood flow, mean transit time and Tmax were created for 145 patients with acute ischemic stroke. Volumes of hypoperfused tissue were calculated using both a manual and an automated protocol, and the results compared between methods.ResultsThe median difference between the automatically and manually derived volumes was up to 210 ml in Perfscape/Neuroscape, 123 ml in PMA and 135 ml in Stroketool. Correlation coefficients between perfusion volumes and radiological and clinical outcome were much lower for the automatic volumes than for the manually derived ones.ConclusionsThe agreement of the two methods was very poor, with the automated use producing falsely exaggerated volumes of hypoperfused tissue. Software improvements are necessary to enable highly automated protocols to credibly assess perfusion deficits.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Galinovic et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012