Quantitative imaging: systematic review of perfusion/flow phantoms.
Microcirculation
Perfusion imaging
Phantoms (imaging)
Reference standards
Journal
European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 03 2020
04 03 2020
Historique:
received:
28
03
2019
accepted:
08
11
2019
entrez:
5
3
2020
pubmed:
5
3
2020
medline:
5
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We aimed at reviewing design and realisation of perfusion/flow phantoms for validating quantitative perfusion imaging (PI) applications to encourage best practices. A systematic search was performed on the Scopus database for "perfusion", "flow", and "phantom", limited to articles written in English published between January 1999 and December 2018. Information on phantom design, used PI and phantom applications was extracted. Of 463 retrieved articles, 397 were rejected after abstract screening and 32 after full-text reading. The 37 accepted articles resulted to address PI simulation in brain (n = 11), myocardial (n = 8), liver (n = 2), tumour (n = 1), finger (n = 1), and non-specific tissue (n = 14), with diverse modalities: ultrasound (n = 11), computed tomography (n = 11), magnetic resonance imaging (n = 17), and positron emission tomography (n = 2). Three phantom designs were described: basic (n = 6), aligned capillary (n = 22), and tissue-filled (n = 12). Microvasculature and tissue perfusion were combined in one compartment (n = 23) or in two separated compartments (n = 17). With the only exception of one study, inter-compartmental fluid exchange could not be controlled. Nine studies compared phantom results with human or animal perfusion data. Only one commercially available perfusion phantom was identified. We provided insights into contemporary phantom approaches to PI, which can be used for ground truth evaluation of quantitative PI applications. Investigators are recommended to verify and validate whether assumptions underlying PI phantom modelling are justified for their intended phantom application.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We aimed at reviewing design and realisation of perfusion/flow phantoms for validating quantitative perfusion imaging (PI) applications to encourage best practices.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on the Scopus database for "perfusion", "flow", and "phantom", limited to articles written in English published between January 1999 and December 2018. Information on phantom design, used PI and phantom applications was extracted.
RESULTS
Of 463 retrieved articles, 397 were rejected after abstract screening and 32 after full-text reading. The 37 accepted articles resulted to address PI simulation in brain (n = 11), myocardial (n = 8), liver (n = 2), tumour (n = 1), finger (n = 1), and non-specific tissue (n = 14), with diverse modalities: ultrasound (n = 11), computed tomography (n = 11), magnetic resonance imaging (n = 17), and positron emission tomography (n = 2). Three phantom designs were described: basic (n = 6), aligned capillary (n = 22), and tissue-filled (n = 12). Microvasculature and tissue perfusion were combined in one compartment (n = 23) or in two separated compartments (n = 17). With the only exception of one study, inter-compartmental fluid exchange could not be controlled. Nine studies compared phantom results with human or animal perfusion data. Only one commercially available perfusion phantom was identified.
CONCLUSION
We provided insights into contemporary phantom approaches to PI, which can be used for ground truth evaluation of quantitative PI applications. Investigators are recommended to verify and validate whether assumptions underlying PI phantom modelling are justified for their intended phantom application.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32128653
doi: 10.1186/s41747-019-0133-2
pii: 10.1186/s41747-019-0133-2
pmc: PMC7054493
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15Références
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Dec;68(6):1994-2004
pubmed: 22354744
Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Apr;22(3):307-14
pubmed: 15062926
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2006 Feb;19(2):154-64
pubmed: 16455419
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013 Sep;8(5):799-807
pubmed: 23263884
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Jun;67(6):1710-20
pubmed: 22114007
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Aug 9;58(7):749-51
pubmed: 21816312
Med Phys. 2004 Mar;31(3):623-32
pubmed: 15070263
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001 Jan;27(1):83-8
pubmed: 11295274
Radiology. 2003 Aug;228(2):473-9
pubmed: 12802003
Toxicol Ind Health. 1997 Jul-Aug;13(4):407-84
pubmed: 9249929
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012 Nov-Dec;36(6):732-8
pubmed: 23192212
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010 Nov;57(11):
pubmed: 20601306
J Nucl Med Technol. 2006 Dec;34(4):193-211; quiz 212-4
pubmed: 17146108
Jpn J Radiol. 2017 Jul;35(7):373-380
pubmed: 28451938
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2011 May;21(2):239-45, ix
pubmed: 21640297
Radiol Phys Technol. 2018 Mar;11(1):13-19
pubmed: 29039068
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 16;60(16):1546-55
pubmed: 22999722
Med Phys. 2017 May;44(5):1646-1654
pubmed: 28241107
Med Phys. 2010 Nov;37(11):5801-10
pubmed: 21158292
J Nucl Cardiol. 2017 Apr;24(2):698-707
pubmed: 26846369
Ultraschall Med. 2004 Dec;25(6):418-21
pubmed: 15597234
J Nucl Med. 2018 Feb;59(2):273-293
pubmed: 29242396
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Mar 1;69(3):698-707
pubmed: 22532435
J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Apr;19(2):338-46
pubmed: 22302181
Eur Radiol. 2012 Jul;22(7):1430-41
pubmed: 22367468
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Oct;31(7):1451-9
pubmed: 26156231
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 May;28(5):625-34
pubmed: 12079699
Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2017;1(1):4
pubmed: 29782598
Neurosurgery. 2006 Aug;59(2):319-25; discussion 319-25
pubmed: 16883171
Invest Radiol. 2016 Aug;51(8):520-8
pubmed: 26895196
Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng. 2011 Aug;39B(3):149-158
pubmed: 26167136
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013 Mar-Apr;7(2):117-24
pubmed: 23622506
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 Mar;28(3):349-58
pubmed: 11978415
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2016 Aug;63(8):1131-9
pubmed: 27244733
Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Jun;18(5):565-74
pubmed: 10913718
Eur J Radiol. 1999 Jun;30(3):170-84
pubmed: 10452715
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6(2):91-7
pubmed: 17690539
Radiol Phys Technol. 2015 Jan;8(1):120-4
pubmed: 25351422
EJNMMI Phys. 2017 Dec 11;4(1):31
pubmed: 29230607
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Sep 13;63(18):185011
pubmed: 30113311
Ultrasonics. 2011 Jan;51(1):102-6
pubmed: 20643467
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014 Sep;61(9):2499-2506
pubmed: 24833413
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Jul;16(1):51-9
pubmed: 12112503
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Apr;13(4):496-520
pubmed: 11276094
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Sep 7;58(17):6111-31
pubmed: 23941800
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2015 Feb 21;9417:
pubmed: 26633914
Invest Radiol. 2012 Aug;47(8):462-7
pubmed: 22717880
Med Phys. 2011 Aug;38(8):4866-80
pubmed: 21928658
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005 Jan;31(1):93-8
pubmed: 15653235