Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)-Phase Ib: Effect of morphology on hemodynamics.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
27
11
2018
accepted:
29
04
2019
entrez:
18
5
2019
pubmed:
18
5
2019
medline:
22
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Image-based blood flow simulations have been increasingly applied to investigate intracranial aneurysm (IA) hemodynamics. However, the acceptance among physicians remains limited due to the high variability in the underlying assumptions and quality of results. To evaluate the vessel segmentation as one of the most important sources of error, the international Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH) was announced. 26 research groups from 13 different countries segmented three datasets, which contained five IAs in total. Based on these segmentations, 73 time-dependent blood flow simulations under consistent conditions were carried out. Afterwards, relevant flow and shear parameters (e.g., neck inflow rate, parent vessel flow rate, spatial mean velocity, and wall shear stress) were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Regarding the entire vasculature, the variability of the segmented vessel radius is 0.13 mm, consistent and independent of the local vessel radius. However, the centerline velocity shows increased variability in more distal vessels. Focusing on the aneurysms, clear differences in morphological and hemodynamic parameters were observed. The quantification of the segmentation-induced variability showed approximately a 14% difference among the groups for the parent vessel flow rate. Regarding the mean aneurysmal velocity and the neck inflow rate, a variation of 30% and 46% was observed, respectively. Finally, time-averaged wall shear stresses varied between 28% and 51%, depending on the aneurysm in question. MATCH reveals the effect of state-of-the-art segmentation algorithms on subsequent hemodynamic simulations for IA research. The observed variations may lead to an inappropriate interpretation of the simulation results and thus, can lead to inappropriate conclusions by physicians. Therefore, accurate segmentation of the region of interest is necessary to obtain reliable and clinically helpful flow information.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Image-based blood flow simulations have been increasingly applied to investigate intracranial aneurysm (IA) hemodynamics. However, the acceptance among physicians remains limited due to the high variability in the underlying assumptions and quality of results.
METHODS
To evaluate the vessel segmentation as one of the most important sources of error, the international Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH) was announced. 26 research groups from 13 different countries segmented three datasets, which contained five IAs in total. Based on these segmentations, 73 time-dependent blood flow simulations under consistent conditions were carried out. Afterwards, relevant flow and shear parameters (e.g., neck inflow rate, parent vessel flow rate, spatial mean velocity, and wall shear stress) were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
RESULTS
Regarding the entire vasculature, the variability of the segmented vessel radius is 0.13 mm, consistent and independent of the local vessel radius. However, the centerline velocity shows increased variability in more distal vessels. Focusing on the aneurysms, clear differences in morphological and hemodynamic parameters were observed. The quantification of the segmentation-induced variability showed approximately a 14% difference among the groups for the parent vessel flow rate. Regarding the mean aneurysmal velocity and the neck inflow rate, a variation of 30% and 46% was observed, respectively. Finally, time-averaged wall shear stresses varied between 28% and 51%, depending on the aneurysm in question.
CONCLUSIONS
MATCH reveals the effect of state-of-the-art segmentation algorithms on subsequent hemodynamic simulations for IA research. The observed variations may lead to an inappropriate interpretation of the simulation results and thus, can lead to inappropriate conclusions by physicians. Therefore, accurate segmentation of the region of interest is necessary to obtain reliable and clinically helpful flow information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31100101
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216813
pii: PONE-D-18-32618
pmc: PMC6524809
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0216813Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Nov;13(11):1781-1793
pubmed: 30159832
Stroke. 2012 May;43(5):1436-9
pubmed: 22363053
Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Jan;43(1):122-38
pubmed: 25186432
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 May;32(5):E95-7; author reply E98-100
pubmed: 21511857
J Biomech. 2013 Sep 3;46(13):2158-64
pubmed: 23891312
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Apr;39(4):713-719
pubmed: 29472302
Ann Biomed Eng. 2004 Feb;32(2):264-73
pubmed: 15008374
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Nov;13(11):1767-1779
pubmed: 30094777
Biomed Eng Online. 2009 Oct 02;8:23
pubmed: 19799782
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Feb;39(2):337-343
pubmed: 29269407
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Mar;36(3):530-6
pubmed: 25500315
NMR Biomed. 2009 Oct;22(8):795-808
pubmed: 19412933
J Biomech Eng. 2015 Dec;137(12):121008
pubmed: 26473395
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Jul;35(7):1254-62
pubmed: 23598838
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Mar;10(3):290-296
pubmed: 28465404
Stroke. 2011 Jan;42(1):144-52
pubmed: 21106956
Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Jun;43(6):1422-31
pubmed: 25707596
J Biomech. 2017 Jun 14;58:162-173
pubmed: 28577904
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018 Aug;160(8):1643-1652
pubmed: 29922867
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2013 Jun;58(3):303-14
pubmed: 23729530
J Neurointerv Surg. 2016 Jan;8(1):104-10
pubmed: 25488922
Comput Math Methods Med. 2016;2016:9854539
pubmed: 27721898
J Biomech Eng. 2009 Sep;131(9):091001
pubmed: 19725690
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Jan;32(1):27-33
pubmed: 21071533
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Mar;35(3):536-43
pubmed: 24231854
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2013 Mar;51(3):343-52
pubmed: 23224794
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Aug;28(8):1141-55
pubmed: 19447701
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Oct;36(10):1796-802
pubmed: 25929878
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Jan;32(1):145-51
pubmed: 21127144
Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018 Dec;9(4):544-564
pubmed: 30203115
J Biomech Eng. 2013 Feb;135(2):021016
pubmed: 23445061
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2019 Oct;14(10):1795-1804
pubmed: 31054128
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Mar;33(3):395-6
pubmed: 22268081
Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018 Dec;9(4):565-581
pubmed: 30191538