Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

Research ArticleEDITORIAL

CT Perfusion Flow Assessment: “Up and Coming” or “Off and Running”?

Heidi C. Roberts MD, Timothy P.L. Roberts MD and William P. Dillon MD
American Journal of Neuroradiology June 2001, 22 (6) 1018-1019;
Heidi C. Roberts MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy P.L. Roberts MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William P. Dillon MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Until recently, options for cerebral blood flow measurements were restricted to positron emission tomography (PET) or xenon CT (Xe-CT) that applied freely diffusible tracers for perfusion assessment and tracer kinetic modeling. Because both techniques suffer from a somewhat limited availability, the introduction of perfusion CT for quantitative flow assessment has been received with immediate, strong enthusiasm from the neuroradiologic community. CT perfusion can be performed noninvasively on a standard CT scanner in a very short time and, potentially, in an emergency setting. Resulting quantitative information on cerebral blood flow could have tremendous implications for the management not only of acute stroke patients, but also of patients with chronic steno-occlusive vascular disease.

It is of utmost importance to validate the CT perfusion technique before using the resulting flow estimates for treatment decisions. Importantly, both the methodologies of data acquisition and kinetic analyses differ from established alternatives like PET or Xe-CT. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT perfusion reflects a different physiology by using an intravascular tracer to assess perfusion rather than a freely diffusible tracer. Validation studies in animals already have been published (1).

Wintermark et al (2) present an important validation study of CT perfusion in humans. The authors address one important validation parameter, the accuracy of CT perfusion, comparing this technique with Xe-CT. Their major conclusion is that perfusion CT in regions excluding major vessels reveals flow values that are in agreement with the reference standard, Xe-CT. This is indeed a very important statement. However, a full, rigorous validation of perfusion CT requires more studies.

A careful consideration in validation studies is the definition of the study population. Wintermark et al present an inhomogeneous selection of underlying diseases. This leaves some questions unanswered: How does the technique perform in complicated physiological scenarios not found in this group of patients, eg, in a unilateral carotid occlusion with various amounts of collateral flow? Following this, what is the best way to use the CT perfusion technique? Flow quantification requires a vascular input function: which vessel (ipsi- or contralateral, more proximal or distal) should be used to calculate flow values in a hemisphere? And does the size of the vascular region of interest (ROI) matter? This is important not only for asymmetrical, but also for symmetrical flow. Are the flow maps affected by the vascular input (eg, anterior cerebral vs middle cerebral vs carotid artery), and if yes, which one is “more correct”? How much does the clinical history of a patient matter in the selection of a vascular ROI? These questions need to be addressed in a rigorously planned trial with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Although these considerations still address the accuracy of CT perfusion, a second parameter for study validation has not been targeted: the reproducibility. CT perfusion analysis software is commercially available and will soon be widely distributed. The software providers emphasize that the technique is very easy to use. But does an untrained technologist really differ from an experienced researcher? Conversely, and importantly, how does an untrained researcher do compared with an experienced technologist? How much operator training is required to yield reliable flow values? How much can the process be automated? How does the same technologist (or radiologist) perform on different days? Clinicians have to be assured that the numbers are reliable regardless of the time and operator, before they can use them for treatment decisions.

To address these additional considerations is straightforward and in part underway in ongoing studies. Even when all the remaining questions are answered and the optimal use of the CT perfusion technique is defined, a last and yet unresolved technical limitation of the CT perfusion technique is, as indicated by the authors, its limited anatomic coverage. Even with multislice CT scanner technology such as that used by the authors, the anatomic coverage is limited to approximately 2 cm. In particular, in an acute stroke patient with a normal non-contrast CT scan, the ischemic area might be underestimated or even missed. This limitation has to be overcome with different imaging approaches (3) and/or CT scanner technology advances.

In summary, Wintermark et al take an important step toward the validation of a new, non-invasive technique for cerebral flow measurements. They demonstrate its potential value and accuracy compared with Xe-CT under optimal conditions with experienced readers. They also highlight pitfalls, such as the error introduced by inadvertent inclusion of vascular structures in analysis ROI. Thus, more work needs to be done regarding standardization and evaluation of sources or error, and more questions need to be answered, both of technical and practical value, before the CT perfusion technique can be unequivocally recommended to the radiology community for reliable flow quantifications.

References

  1. ↵
    Cenic A, Nabavi DG, Craen RA, Gelb AW, Lee T-Y. A CT method to measure hemodynamics in brain tumors: validation and application of cerebral blood flow maps. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol ;21:462-470
  2. Wintermark M, Thiran J-P, Maeder P, Schnyder P, Meuli R. Simultaneous measurement of regional cerebral blood flow by perfusion CT: a validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;22:905-914
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Roberts HC, Roberts TPL, Smith W, Fischbein NJ, Dillon WP. Multislice dynamic CT perfusion for acute cerebral ischemia: the toggling table technique. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. In press
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 22 (6)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 22, Issue 6
1 Jun 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
CT Perfusion Flow Assessment: “Up and Coming” or “Off and Running”?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Heidi C. Roberts MD, Timothy P.L. Roberts MD, William P. Dillon MD
CT Perfusion Flow Assessment: “Up and Coming” or “Off and Running”?
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2001, 22 (6) 1018-1019;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
CT Perfusion Flow Assessment: “Up and Coming” or “Off and Running”?
Heidi C. Roberts MD, Timothy P.L. Roberts MD, William P. Dillon MD
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2001, 22 (6) 1018-1019;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Recommendations for Imaging of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
  • Theoretic Basis and Technical Implementations of CT Perfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke, Part 1: Theoretic Basis
  • Quantitative Assessment of Core/Penumbra Mismatch in Acute Stroke: CT and MR Perfusion Imaging Are Strongly Correlated When Sufficient Brain Volume Is Imaged
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Supporting Imaging Research: A Framework for Equity and Excellence in Neuroradiology
  • Neuroimaging within the Stroke Treatment Paradigm – An Update from the Brain Attack Coalition
  • Advancing Neuroradiology through Innovation and Member Engagement
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire