Attenuation correction and normalisation for quantification of contrast enhancement in ultrasound images of carotid arteries

Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1876-1883

  Cheung, Wing Keung ^a   Gujral, Dorothy M ^b   Shah, Benoy N ^a   Chahal, Navtej S ^a   Bhattacharyya, Sanjeev ^a   Cosgrove, David O ^a   Eckersley, Robert J ^c   Harrington, Kevin J ^b   Senior, Roxy ^a   Nutting, Christopher M ^b   Tang, Meng Xing ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adventitial vasa vasorum; Attenuation correction; Carotid artery; Contrast enhanced ultrasound; Perfusion quantification; Shadowing

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS;

ATTENUATION CORRECTION; CAROTID ARTERY; CONTRAST ENHANCED ULTRASOUND; PERFUSION QUANTIFICATION; SHADOWING; VASA VASORUM;

ULTRASONICS;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; CAROTID ARTERIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; RADIOLOGY PHANTOM; ULTRASOUND ATTENUATION CORRECTION AND NORMALIZATION; VALIDATION PROCESS; ARTIFACT; CAROTID ARTERY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICES; ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGING PHANTOM; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFACTS; CAROTID ARTERIES; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84942987187     PISSN: 03015629     EISSN: 1879291X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.02.010     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. BriechleK, HanebeckUD. Templatematching using fast normalized cross correlation. Proc SPIE Opt Pattern Recog XII 2001;4387:95-102.
2. Feinstein SB. Contrast ultrasound imaging of the carotid artery vasa vasorum and atherosclerotic plaque neovascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:236-243.
3. Golemati S, Sassano A, Lever MJ, Bharath AA, Dhanjil S, Nicolaides AN. Carotid artery wall motion estimated from Bmode ultrasound using region tracking and block matching. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29:387-399.
4. Hellings WE, Peeters W, Moll FL, Piers SRD, van Setten J, Van der Spek PJ, de Vries JP, Seldenrijk KA, De Bruin PC, Vink A, Velema E, de Kleijn DPV, Pasterkamp G. Composition of carotid atherosclerotic plaque is associated with cardiovascular outcome: A prognostic study. Circulation 2010;121:1941-1950.
5. Macioch JE, Katsamakis CD, Robin J, Liebson PR, Meyer PM, Geohas C, Raichlen JS, Davidson MH, Feinstein SB. Effect of contrast enhancement on measurement of carotid artery intimal medial thickness. Vasc Med 2004;9:7-12.
6. Madsen EL, Frank GR, Dong F. Liquid or solid ultrasonically tissuemimicking materials with very low scatter. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998;24:535-542.
7. Mari JM, Hibbs K, Stride E, Eckersley RJ, Tang MX. An approximate nonlinear model for time gain compensation of amplitude modulated images of ultrasound contrast agent perfusion. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2010;57:818-829.
8. Mule S, De Cesare A, Lucidarme O, Frouin F, Herment A. Regularized estimation of contrast agent attenuation to improve the imaging of microbubbles in small animal studies. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008; 34:938-948.
9. Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Mortality by cause for eight regions of the world: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997;349:1269-1276.
10. Tang MX, Eckersley RJ. Nonlinear propagation of ultrasound through microbubble contrast agents and implications for imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2006;53:2406-2415.
11. Tang MX, Kamiyama N, Eckersley RJ. Effects of nonlinear propagation in ultrasound contrast agent imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010;36: 459-466.
12. Tang MX, Mari JM, Wells PNT, Eckersley RJ. Attenuation correction in ultrasound contrast agent imaging: Elementary theory and preliminary experimental evaluation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34: 1998-2008.
13. Tang MX, Mulvana H, Gauthier T, Lim AKP, Cosgrove DO, Eckersley RJ, Stride E. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: A review of sources of variability. Interface Focus 2011; 1:520-539.
14. Ten Kate GL, Renaud GGJ, Akkus Z, van den Oord SCH, ten Cate FJ, Shamdasani V, Entrekin RR, Sijbrands EJG, de Jong N, Bosch JG, Schinkel AFL, van der Steen AFW. Far-wall pseudoenhancement during contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the carotid arteries: Clinical description and in vitro reproduction. Ultrasound Med Biol 2012;38: 593-600.
15. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology: The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemicheart-disease. Circulation 1995;92:2333-2342.
16. U-King-Im JM, Young V, Gillard JH. Carotid-artery imaging in the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:569-580.
17. Van den Oord SC, Renaud G, Bosch JG, de Jong N, van der Steen AF, Schinkel AF. Far wall pseudo-enhancement: A neglected artifact in carotid contrast-enhanced ultrasound? Atherosclerosis 2013; 229:451-452.
18. Virmani R, Burke AP, Farb A, Kolodgie FD. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:C13-C18.
19. Yildiz Y, Eckersley RJ, Senior R, Lim A, Cosgrove DO, Tang MX. Correction of nonlinear propagation artifact in contrast enhanced ultrasound imaging of carotid arteries: methods and in vitro evaluation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:1938-1947.