High-resolution 3T MR angiography of the carotid arteries: Comparison of manual and semiautomated quantification of stenosis

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 46-52

  Habibi, R ^a,d   Lell, M M ^a   Steiner, R ^c   Ruehm, S G ^a   Sayre, J W ^a,b   Nael, K ^a   Finn, J P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTERY DIAMETER; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CAROTID ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS;

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CAROTID ARTERIES; CAROTID STENOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 58249124567     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1302     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Rothwell PM. For severe carotid stenosis found on ultrasound, further arterial evaluation prior to carotid endarterectomy is unnecessary: the argument against. Stroke 2003;34:1817-19, discussion 1819
2. Wardlaw JM, Chappell FM, Best JJ, et al. Non-invasive imaging compared with intra-arterial angiography in the diagnosis of symptomatic carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;367:1503-12
3. Cuffe RL, Rothwell PM. Effect of nonoptimal imaging on the relationship between the measured degree of symptomatic carotid stenosis and risk of ischemic stroke. Stroke 2006;37:1785-91
4. Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1202-10
5. Fox AJ, EliasziwM, Rothwell PM, et al. Identification, prognosis, and management of patients with carotid artery near occlusion. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2086-94
6. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods ofclinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10
7. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159 -74
8. Willinsky RA, Taylor SM, TerBrugge K, et al. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology 2003;227:522-28
9. Nederkoorn PJ, van der Graaf Y, Hunink MG. Duplex ultrasound and magneticresonance angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography in carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review. Stroke 2003;34:1324 -32
10. Bartlett ES, Walters TD, Symons SP, et al. Quantification of carotid stenosis on CT angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:13-19
11. Hacklander T, Wegner H, Hoppe S, et al. Agreement of multislice CT angiography and MR angiography in assessing the degreeofcarotidarterystenosisin consideration of different methods of postprocessing. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:433-42
12. Lell M, Fellner C, Baum U, et al. Evaluation of carotid artery stenosis with multisection CT and MR imaging: influence of imaging modality and postprocessing. AJNR Am JNeuroradiol 2007;28:104-10
13. Yang CW, Carr JC, Futterer SF, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the carotid and vertebrobasilar circulations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2095-101
14. Nael K, Villablanca JP, Pope WB, et al. Supraaortic arteries: contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3.0 T-highly accelerated parallel acquisition for improved spatial resolution over an extended field of view. Radiology 2007;242:600-09
15. Al-Kwifi O, Emery DJ, Wilman AH. Vessel contrast at three Tesla in time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiographyofthe intracranial and carotid arteries. Magn Reson Imaging2002;20:181-87
16. Bachmann R,Nassenstein I,Kooijman H, et al. Spontaneous acute dissection of the internal carotid artery: high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla with a dedicated surface coil. Invest Radiol 2006;41:105-11
17. Cashen TA, Carr JC, Shin W, et al. Intracranial time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:822-29
18. Fenchel M, Nael K, Ruehm S, et al. Isotropic high spatial resolution magnetic resonance angiography of the supra-aortic arteries using two-dimensional parallel imaging (iPAT2) at 3 Tesla: a feasibility study. Invest Radiol 2006;41:545-52
19. Hahnel S, Nguyen-Trong TH, Rohde S, et al. 3.0 Tesla contrast-enhanced MR angiography of carotid artery stents: in vitro measurements as compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Neuroradiol 2006;33:75-80
20. Nael K, Michaely HJ, Villablanca P, et al. Time-resolved contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the head and neck at 3.0 tesla: initial results. Invest Radiol 2006;41:116- 4
21. Nael K, Ruehm SG, Michaely HJ, et al. High spatial-resolution CE-MRA of the carotid circulation with parallel imaging: comparison of image quality between2 different acceleration factors at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:391-99
22. Ziyeh S, Strecker R, Berlis A, et al. Dynamic 3D MR angiography of intra- and extracranial vascular malformations at 3T: a technical note. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:630 -34
23. Gibbs GF, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, et al. Improved image quality of intracranial aneurysms: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T time-of-flight MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:84 -87
24. Gibbs GF, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, et al. 3.0-Tesla MR angiography of intracranial aneurysms: comparison of time-of-flight and contrast-enhanced techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging2005;21:97-102
25. dame IM, de Koning PJ, Lelieveldt BP, et al. An integrated automated analysis method for quantifying vessel stenosis and plaque burden from carotid MRI images: combined postprocessing of MRA and vessel wall MR. Stroke 2006;37: 2162-4. Epub 2006 Jun 29
26. de Koning PJ, Schaap JA, Janssen JP, et al. Automated segmentation and analysis of vascular structures in magnetic resonance angiographicimages. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:1189-98
27. Frangi AF, Niessen WJ, Nederkoorn PJ, et al. Quantitative analysis of vascular morphology from3D MR angiograms: invitro andinvivo results. MagnReson Med 2001;45:311-22
28. van Bemmel CM, Viergever MA, Niessen WJ. Semiautomatic segmentation and stenosis quantification of 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiograms ofthe internal carotid artery. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:753-60
29. Boskamp T, Rinck D, Link F, et al. New vessel analysis tool for morphometric quantification and visualization of vessels in CT and MR imaging data sets. Radiographics 2004;24:287-97
30. Suri JS, Liu K, Reden L, et al. A review on MR vascular image processing: skeleton versus nonskeleton approach. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biome 0d 2002; 6(pt2):338-50
31. Suri JS, Liu K, Reden L, et al. A review on MR vascular image processing algorithms: acquisition and prefiltering. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2002; 6(pt 1):324 -37
32. Zhang Z, Berg MH, Ikonen AE, et al. Carotid artery stenosis: reproducibility of automated 3D CT angiographyanalysis method. Eur Radiol 2004;14:665-72
33. Silvennoinen HM, Ikonen S, Soinne L, et al. CT angiographic analysis of carotid artery stenosis: comparison of manual assessment, semiautomatic vessel analysis, and digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:97-103
34. Hirai T, Korogi Y, Ono K, et al. Maximum stenosis of extracranial internal carotid artery: effect of luminal morphology on stenosis measurement byusing CT angiography and conventional DSA. Radiology2001;221:802-09