Prediction of Subacute Infarct Size in Acute Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke: Comparison of Perfusion-weighted Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112430

Prediction based on apparent diffusion coefficients was as efficient as that based on perfusion-weighted (PW) imaging to estimate subsequent infarct growth and was more stable than the PW imaging-based method within and above the therapeutic window of 4 hours 30 minutes to assess subacute infarct size.

Purpose

To compare perfusion-weighted (PW) imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps in prediction of infarct size and growth in patients with acute middle cerebral artery infarct.

Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the local institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained from all 80 patients. Subsequent infarct volume and growth on follow-up magnetic resonance (MR) images obtained within 6 days were compared with the predictions based on PW images by using a time-to-peak threshold greater than 4 seconds and ADC maps obtained less than 12 hours after middle cerebral artery infarct. ADC- and PW imaging–predicted infarct growth areas and infarct volumes were correlated with subsequent infarct growth and follow-up diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging volumes. The impact of MR imaging time delay on the correlation coefficient between the predicted and subsequent infarct volumes and individual predictions of infarct growth by using receiver operating characteristic curves were assessed.

Results

The infarct volume measurements were highly reproducible (concordance correlation coefficient [CCC] of 0.965 and 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.949, 0.976 for acute DW imaging; CCC of 0.995 and 95% CI: 0.993, 0.997 for subacute DW imaging). The subsequent infarct volume correlated (P < .0001) with ADC- (ρ = 0.853) and PW imaging- (ρ = 0.669) predicted volumes. The correlation was higher for ADC-predicted volume than for PW imaging-predicted volume (P < .005), but not when the analysis was restricted to patients without recanalization (P = .07). The infarct growth correlated (P < .0001) with PW imaging-DW imaging mismatch (ρ = 0.470) and ADC-DW imaging mismatch (ρ = 0.438), without significant differences between both methods (P = .71). The correlations were similar among time delays with ADC-predicted volumes but decreased with PW imaging-based volumes beyond the therapeutic window. Accuracies of ADC- and PW imaging–based predictions of infarct growth in an individual prediction were similar (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] of 0.698 and 95% CI: 0.585, 0.796 vs AUC of 0.749 and 95% CI: 0.640, 0.839; P = .48).

Conclusion

The ADC-based method was as accurate as the PW imaging–based method for evaluating infarct growth and size in the subacute phase.

© RSNA, 2012

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12112430/-/DC1

References

  • 1 Moustafa RR, Baron JC. Pathophysiology of ischaemic stroke: insights from imaging, and implications for therapy and drug discovery. Br J Pharmacol 2008;153(Suppl 1):S44–S54. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Neumann-Haefelin T, Wittsack HJ, Wenserski F, et al.. Diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI: the DWI/PWI mismatch region in acute stroke. Stroke 1999;30(8):1591–1597. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Warach S. Use of diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging as a tool in acute stroke clinical trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2001;2(1):38–44. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Oppenheim C, Grandin C, Samson Y, et al.. Is there an apparent diffusion coefficient threshold in predicting tissue viability in hyperacute stroke? Stroke 2001;32(11):2486–2491. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Na DG, Thijs VN, Albers GW, Moseley ME, Marks MP. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in acute ischemia: value of apparent diffusion coefficient and signal intensity thresholds in predicting tissue at risk and final infarct size. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25(8):1331–1336. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Montiel NH, Rosso C, Chupin N, et al.. Automatic prediction of infarct growth in acute ischemic stroke from MR apparent diffusion coefficient maps. Acad Radiol 2008;15(1):77–83. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rosso C, Hevia-Montiel N, Deltour S, et al.. Prediction of infarct growth based on apparent diffusion coefficients: penumbral assessment without intravenous contrast material. Radiology 2009;250(1):184–192. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rosso C, Attal Y, Deltour S, et al.. Hyperglycemia and the fate of apparent diffusion coefficient-defined ischemic penumbra. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32(5):852–856. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sibon I, Ménégon P, Orgogozo JM, et al.. Inter- and intraobserver reliability of five MRI sequences in the evaluation of the final volume of cerebral infarct. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29(6):1280–1284. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tourdias T, Dousset V, Sibon I, et al.. Magnetization transfer imaging shows tissue abnormalities in the reversible penumbra. Stroke 2007;38(12):3165–3171. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tourdias T, Renou P, Sibon I, et al.. Final cerebral infarct volume is predictable by MR imaging at 1 week. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32(2):352–358. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45(1):255–268. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003;229(1):3–8. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hotter B, Pittl S, Ebinger M, et al.. Prospective study on the mismatch concept in acute stroke patients within the first 24 h after symptom onset: 1000Plus study. BMC Neurol 2009;9:60. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sokoloff L. Seymour S. Kety, M.D. 1915-2000. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2000;20(9):1271–1275. Google Scholar
  • 16 Sakoh M, Ostergaard L, Gjedde A, et al.. Prediction of tissue survival after middle cerebral artery occlusion based on changes in the apparent diffusion of water. J Neurosurg 2001;95(3):450–458. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fiehler J, Foth M, Kucinski T, et al.. Severe ADC decreases do not predict irreversible tissue damage in humans. Stroke 2002;33(1):79–86. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Olivot JM, Mlynash M, Thijs VN, et al.. Relationships between cerebral perfusion and reversibility of acute diffusion lesions in DEFUSE: insights from RADAR. Stroke 2009;40(5):1692–1697. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chemmanam T, Campbell BC, Christensen S, et al.. Ischemic diffusion lesion reversal is uncommon and rarely alters perfusion-diffusion mismatch. Neurology 2010;75(12):1040–1047. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Johnston KC, Barrett KM, Ding YH, Wagner DP; Acute Stroke Accurate Prediction Investigators. Clinical and imaging data at 5 days as a surrogate for 90-day outcome in ischemic stroke. Stroke 2009;40(4):1332–1333. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sobesky J, Zaro Weber O, Lehnhardt FG, et al.. Which time-to-peak threshold best identifies penumbral flow? a comparison of perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2004;35(12):2843–2847. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zaro-Weber O, Moeller-Hartmann W, Heiss WD, Sobesky J. Maps of time to maximum and time to peak for mismatch definition in clinical stroke studies validated with positron emission tomography. Stroke 2010;41(12):2817–2821. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schellinger PD, Bryan RN, Caplan LR, et al.. Evidence-based guideline: the role of diffusion and perfusion MRI for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke—report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2010;75(2):177–185. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received November 13, 2011; revision requested January 27, 2012; revision received March 4; accepted March 28; final version accepted April 27.
Published online: Nov 2012
Published in print: Nov 2012