Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)-phase II: rupture risk assessment.
Hemodynamic simulation
International challenge
Intracranial aneurysm
Rupture risk
Journal
International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery
ISSN: 1861-6429
Titre abrégé: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101499225
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
10
01
2019
accepted:
23
04
2019
pubmed:
6
5
2019
medline:
22
1
2020
entrez:
5
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Assessing the rupture probability of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remains challenging. Therefore, hemodynamic simulations are increasingly applied toward supporting physicians during treatment planning. However, due to several assumptions, the clinical acceptance of these methods remains limited. To provide an overview of state-of-the-art blood flow simulation capabilities, the Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH) was conducted. Seventeen research groups from all over the world performed segmentations and hemodynamic simulations to identify the ruptured aneurysm in a patient harboring five IAs. Although simulation setups revealed good similarity, clear differences exist with respect to the analysis of aneurysm shape and blood flow results. Most groups (12/71%) included morphological and hemodynamic parameters in their analysis, with aspect ratio and wall shear stress as the most popular candidates, respectively. The majority of groups (7/41%) selected the largest aneurysm as being the ruptured one. Four (24%) of the participating groups were able to correctly select the ruptured aneurysm, while three groups (18%) ranked the ruptured aneurysm as the second most probable. Successful selections were based on the integration of clinically relevant information such as the aneurysm site, as well as advanced rupture probability models considering multiple parameters. Additionally, flow characteristics such as the quantification of inflow jets and the identification of multiple vortices led to correct predictions. MATCH compares state-of-the-art image-based blood flow simulation approaches to assess the rupture risk of IAs. Furthermore, this challenge highlights the importance of multivariate analyses by combining clinically relevant metadata with advanced morphological and hemodynamic quantification.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31054128
doi: 10.1007/s11548-019-01986-2
pii: 10.1007/s11548-019-01986-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1795-1804Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 13GW0095A
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : 399581926
Références
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Mar;38(3):570-576
pubmed: 28209576
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Mar;36(3):530-6
pubmed: 25500315
J Biomech Eng. 2015 Dec;137(12):121008
pubmed: 26473395
J Biomech. 2014 Sep 22;47(12):3210-6
pubmed: 25062933
J Biomech Eng. 2009 Sep;131(9):091004
pubmed: 19725693
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Mar;10(3):290-296
pubmed: 28465404
Stroke. 2011 Jan;42(1):144-52
pubmed: 21106956
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Jan;13(1):83-93
pubmed: 28733907
Stroke. 2008 Nov;39(11):2997-3002
pubmed: 18688012
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018 Aug;160(8):1643-1652
pubmed: 29922867
J Neurointerv Surg. 2016 Jan;8(1):104-10
pubmed: 25488922
Comput Math Methods Med. 2016;2016:9854539
pubmed: 27721898
J Biomech Eng. 2017 Dec 1;139(12):
pubmed: 28857116
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Feb;32(2):264-70
pubmed: 21051508
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2016 Mar;32(3):e02737
pubmed: 26217878
J Neurointerv Surg. 2015 Jul;7(7):490-5
pubmed: 24811740
Stroke. 2016 May;47(5):1407-12
pubmed: 27026629
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Mar;35(3):536-43
pubmed: 24231854
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Nov;38(11):2111-2118
pubmed: 28860212
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003 Apr;24(4):559-66
pubmed: 12695182
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(10):1948-55
pubmed: 21903914
J Biomech. 2013 Sep 3;46(13):2158-64
pubmed: 23891312
J Physiol. 2016 Dec 1;594(23):6833-6847
pubmed: 26990229
J Biomech. 2016 Aug 16;49(12):2540-7
pubmed: 26803339
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Jan;32(1):145-51
pubmed: 21127144
Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018 Dec;9(4):544-564
pubmed: 30203115
World Neurosurg. 2017 Feb;98:868.e5-868.e10
pubmed: 28017758
Biomed Eng Online. 2019 Mar 25;18(1):35
pubmed: 30909934
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2012 Feb;28(2):214-28
pubmed: 22548127
Interv Neuroradiol. 2004 Mar 30;10 Suppl 1:155-60
pubmed: 20587293
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 03;9(12):e113762
pubmed: 25470724
J Biomech Eng. 2013 Feb;135(2):021016
pubmed: 23445061
J Biomech. 2017 Feb 8;52:179-182
pubmed: 28069165
Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018 Dec;9(4):565-581
pubmed: 30191538
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Jan;38(1):119-126
pubmed: 27686488
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Nov;13(11):1767-1779
pubmed: 30094777
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Mar;11(3):275-282
pubmed: 30061369
J Biomech Eng. 2014 Apr;136(4):null
pubmed: 24292415
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1926 Mar;12(3):207-14
pubmed: 16576980
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Feb;39(2):337-343
pubmed: 29269407