Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of semi-automatic arterial stenosis quantification

  • Original article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Object: To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of semi-automatic vessel axis extraction and stenosis quantification in 3D contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography (CE-MRA) of the carotid arteries (CA).

Materials and methods: A total of 25 MRA datasets was used: 5 phantoms with known stenoses, and 20 patients (40 CAs) drawn from a multicenter trial database. Maracas software extracted vessel centerlines and quantified the stenoses, based on boundary detection in planes perpendicular to the centerline. Centerline accuracy was visually scored. Semi-automatic measurements were compared with: (1) theoretical phantom morphometric values, and (2) stenosis degrees evaluated by two independent radiologists.

Results: Exploitable centerlines were obtained in 97% of CA and in all phantoms. In phantoms, the software achieved a better agreement with theoretic stenosis degrees (weighted kappa κ w =  0.91) than the radiologists (κ w   =   0.69). In patients, agreement between software and radiologists varied from κ w =0.67 to 0.90. In both, Maracas was substantially more reproducible than the readers. Mean operating time was within 1 min/ CA.

Conclusion: Maracas software generates accurate 3D centerlines of vascular segments with minimum user intervention. Semi-automatic quantification of CA stenosis is also accurate, except in very severe stenoses that cannot be segmented. It substantially reduces the inter-observer variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee VS, Doug JM, Krinsky GA, Rofsky NM (2000) Gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography: artifacts and pitfalls. Am J Roentgenol 175:197–205

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barbier C, Lefevre F, Bui P, Denny P, Aiouaz C, Becker S (2001) Contrast-enhanced MRA of the carotid arteries using 0.5 Tesla: comparison with selective digital angiography. J Radiol 82:245–249

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vanninen RL, Manninen HI, Partanen PK, Tulla H, Vainio PA (1996) How should we estimate carotid stenosis using magnetic resonance angiography? Neuroradiol 38:299–305

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Serfaty JM, Chirossel P, Chevallier JM, Ecochard R, Froment JC, Douek PC (2000) Accuracy of three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR Angiography in the assessment of extracranial carotid artery disease. Am J Roentgenol 175: 455–463

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van Bemmel CM, Elgersma OEH, Vonken EPA, Fiorelli M, Leeuven MS, Niessen WJ (2004) Evaluation of semiautomated internal carotid artery stenosis quantification from 3-dimensional contrast-enhanced MRA. Invest Radiol 39:418–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Bemmel CM, Viergever MA, Niessen WJ (2004) Semiautomatic segmentation and stenosis quantification of 3D contrast-enhanced MR Angiograms of the internal carotid artery. Magn Reson Med 51:753–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wong KS, Lam WW, Liang E, Huang YN, Chan YL, Kay R (1996) Variability of magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomography angiography in grading middle cerebral artery stenosis. Stroke 6:1084–1087

    Google Scholar 

  8. NASCET Partners (1991) Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 325:445–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. ECAAS Partners (1995) Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA 273:1421–1428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Elgersma OE, Wust AF, Buijs PC, van Der Graaf Y, Eikelboom BC, Mali WP (2000) Multidirectional depiction of internal carotid arterial stenosis: three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography versus rotational and conventional digital subtraction angiography. Radiol 216:511–516

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hernández Hoyos M, Orkisz M, Puech P, Mansard-Desbleds C, Douek P, Magnin IE (2002) Computer assisted analysis of 3D MRA images. Radiographics 22:421–436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hernández Hoyos M, Orkisz M, Douek PC, Magnin IE (2005) Assessment of carotid artery stenoses in 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography, based on improved generation of the centerline. Mach Graph Vis 14:349–378

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hernández Hoyos M, Orlowski P, Piatkowska-Janko E, Bogorodzki P, Orkisz M (2006) Vascular centerline extraction in 3D MR angiograms for phase contrast MRI blood flow measurement. J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 1:51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mukundan R, Ramakrishnan KR (1998) Moment functions in image analysis, theory and applications. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore 150 p

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hofman M, Visser F, van Rossum A, Vink Q, Sprenger M, Westerhof N (1995) In vivo validation of magnetic resonance blood volume flow measurements with limited spatial resolution in small vessels. Magn Reson Med 33:778–784

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoogeveen R, Bakker C, Mali W, Viergever M (1997) diameter measurements in TOF and PC angiography: a need for standardization? In: 5th annual meeting International Society of Magnetic Resonance Medicine, Vancouver, p 1847

  17. Hoogeveen RM, Bakker C, Viergever MA (1998) Limits to the accuracy of vessel diameter measurement in MR Angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 8:1228–1235

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Frangi AF, Niessen WJ, Hoogeveen RM, Walsum T, Viergever MA (1999) Model-based quantitation of 3-D magnetic resonance angiographic images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 18:946–956

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Renaudin CP, Barbier B, Roriz R, Revel D, Amiel M (1994) Coronary arteries: new design for three-dimensional arterial phantom. Radiol 190:579–582

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nonent M, Serfaty J-M, Nigoghossian N, Rouhart F, Derex L, Rotaru C, et al. (2004) Concordance rate differences of 3 noninvasive imaging techniques to measure carotid stenosis in clinical routine practice: results of the CARMEDAS multicenter study. Stroke 2235:682–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Douek P, Revel D, Chazel S, Falise B, Villard J, Amiel M (1995) Fast MR angiography of the aortoiliac arteries and arteries of the lower extremity: value of bolus-enhanced, whole-volume subtraction technique. Am J Roentgenol 165:431–437

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet I:307–310

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CREATIS Research Unit, CNRS (UMR 5515), INSERM (U630), INSA de Lyon and Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, INSA – Blaise Pascal, 7 rue Capelle, 69621, Villeurbanne Cedex, France

    Marcela Hernández Hoyos, Jean-Michel Serfaty, Catherine Mansard, Maciej Orkisz, Isabelle E. Magnin & Philippe C. Douek

  2. Département de Radiologie, Hôpital Cardiovasculaire et Pneumologique L. Pradel, 28 rue du Doyen Lepine, Bron, 69500, France

    Jean-Michel Serfaty, Albinka Maghiar & Philippe C. Douek

  3. Grupo de Ingeniería Biomédica, Grupo Imagíne, Universidad de los Andes, Calle 19 A No. 1-37 Este, Bogota, D.C., Colombia

    Marcela Hernández Hoyos

Authors
  1. Marcela Hernández Hoyos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Michel Serfaty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albinka Maghiar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Mansard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maciej Orkisz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Isabelle E. Magnin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philippe C. Douek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maciej Orkisz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoyos, M.H., Serfaty, JM., Maghiar, A. et al. Evaluation of semi-automatic arterial stenosis quantification. Int J CARS 1, 167–175 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-006-0049-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-006-0049-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation