Copen William A, Yoo Albert J, Rost Natalia S, Morais Lívia T, Schaefer Pamela W, González R Gilberto, Wu Ona
Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 30;12(11):e0188891. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188891. eCollection 2017.
Neuroimaging may guide acute stroke treatment by measuring the volume of brain tissue in the irreversibly injured "ischemic core." The most widely accepted core volume measurement technique is diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI). However, some claim that measuring regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) with CT perfusion imaging (CTP), and labeling tissue below some threshold as the core, provides equivalent estimates. We tested whether any threshold allows reliable substitution of CBF for DWI.
58 patients with suspected stroke underwent DWI and CTP within six hours of symptom onset. A neuroradiologist outlined DWI lesions. In CBF maps, core pixels were defined by thresholds ranging from 0%-100% of normal, in 1% increments. Replicating prior studies, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to select thresholds that optimized sensitivity and specificity in predicting DWI-positive pixels, first using only pixels on the side of the brain where infarction was clinically suspected ("unilateral" method), then including both sides ("bilateral"). We quantified each method and threshold's accuracy in estimating DWI volumes, using sums of squared errors (SSE). For the 23 patients with follow-up studies, we assessed whether CBF-derived volumes inaccurately exceeded follow-up infarct volumes.
The areas under the ROC curves were 0.89 (unilateral) and 0.90 (bilateral). Various metrics selected optimum CBF thresholds ranging from 29%-32%, with sensitivities of 0.79-0.81, and specificities of 0.83-0.85. However, for the unilateral and bilateral methods respectively, volume estimates derived from all CBF thresholds above 28% and 22% were less accurate than disregarding imaging and presuming every patient's core volume to be zero. The unilateral method with a 30% threshold, which recent clinical trials have employed, produced a mean core overestimation of 65 mL (range: -82-191), and exceeded follow-up volumes for 83% of patients, by up to 191 mL.
CTP-derived CBF maps cannot substitute for DWI in measuring the ischemic core.
神经影像学可通过测量不可逆损伤的“缺血核心区”脑组织体积来指导急性卒中治疗。最广泛接受的核心区体积测量技术是扩散加权磁共振成像(DWI)。然而,一些人认为,用CT灌注成像(CTP)测量局部脑血流量(CBF),并将低于某个阈值的组织标记为核心区,能提供等效的估计值。我们测试了是否存在任何阈值能让CBF可靠地替代DWI。
58例疑似卒中患者在症状发作6小时内接受了DWI和CTP检查。一名神经放射科医生勾勒出DWI病变区域。在CBF图中,核心像素由正常水平0%-100%的阈值定义,以1%的增量递增。重复先前的研究,我们使用受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线来选择能优化预测DWI阳性像素的敏感性和特异性的阈值,首先仅使用临床怀疑有梗死的脑侧的像素(“单侧”方法),然后包括两侧(“双侧”)。我们使用均方误差(SSE)来量化每种方法和阈值在估计DWI体积方面的准确性。对于23例进行了随访研究的患者,我们评估了CBF得出的体积是否不准确地超过了随访梗死体积。
ROC曲线下面积分别为0.89(单侧)和0.90(双侧)。各种指标选择的最佳CBF阈值范围为29%-32%,敏感性为0.79-0.81,特异性为0.83-0.85。然而,对于单侧和双侧方法,分别来自高于28%和22%的所有CBF阈值得出的体积估计比不考虑影像学检查并假定每个患者的核心区体积为零更不准确。最近的临床试验采用的30%阈值的单侧方法,核心区平均高估65毫升(范围:-82至191),83%的患者超过随访体积,最多超过191毫升。
CTP得出的CBF图在测量缺血核心区时不能替代DWI。