Deep Learning–Based Synthetic TOF-MRA Generation Using Time-Resolved MRA in Fast Stroke Imaging

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Berkhemer OA,
   2. Jansen IG,
   3. Beumer D, et al

   ; MR CLEAN Investigators. Collateral status on baseline computed tomographic angiography and intra-arterial treatment effect in patients with proximal anterior circulation stroke. Stroke 2016;47:768–76 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011788 pmid:26903582

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Menon BK,
   2. Qazi E,
   3. Nambiar V, et al

   ; Interventional Management of Stroke III Investigators. Differential effect of baseline computed tomographic angiography collaterals on clinical outcome in patients enrolled in the Interventional Management of Stroke III trial. Stroke 2015;46:1239–44 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009009 pmid:25791716

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Goyal M,
   2. Demchuk AM,
   3. Menon BK, et al

   ; ESCAPE Trial Investigators. Randomized assessment of rapid endovascular treatment of ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1019–30 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1414905 pmid:25671798

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Menon BK,
   2. d’Esterre CD,
   3. Qazi EM, et al

   . Multiphase CT angiography: a new tool for the imaging triage of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Radiology 2015;275:510–20 doi:10.1148/radiol.15142256 pmid:25633505

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. van den Wijngaard IR,
   2. Holswilder G,
   3. Wermer MJ, et al

   . Assessment of collateral status by dynamic CT angiography in acute MCA stroke: timing of acquisition and relationship with final infarct volume. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1231–36 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4746 pmid:27032971

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. van den Wijngaard IR,
   2. Boiten J,
   3. Holswilder G, et al

   . Impact of collateral status evaluated by dynamic computed tomographic angiography on clinical outcome in patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke 2015;46:3398–404 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010354 pmid:26542691

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Powers WJ,
   2. Rabinstein AA,
   3. Ackerson T, et al

   . Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2019;50:e344–418 doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000211 pmid:31662037

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Hernández-Pérez M,
   2. Puig J,
   3. Blasco G, et al

   . Dynamic magnetic resonance angiography provides collateral circulation and hemodynamic information in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2016;47:531–34 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010748 pmid:26658445

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Nael K,
   2. Sakai Y,
   3. Khatri P, et al

   . Imaging-based selection for endovascular treatment in stroke. Radiographics 2019;39:1696–713 doi:10.1148/rg.2019190030 pmid:31589574

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Roh HG,
    2. Kim EY,
    3. Kim IS, et al

    . A novel collateral imaging method derived from time-resolved dynamic contrast-enhanced MR angiography in acute ischemic stroke: a pilot study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:946–53 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6068 pmid:31097431

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Kim HJ,
    2. Lee SB,
    3. Choi JW, et al

    . Multiphase MR angiography collateral map: functional outcome after acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke. Radiology 2020;295:192–201 doi:10.1148/radiol.2020191712 pmid:32068506

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Sakata A,
    2. Sakamoto R,
    3. Fushimi Y, et al

    . Low-dose contrast-enhanced time-resolved angiography with stochastic trajectories with iterative reconstruction (IT-TWIST-MRA) in brain arteriovenous shunt. Eur Radiol 2022;32:5392–401 doi:10.1007/s00330-022-08678-7 pmid:35298680

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Goldman-Yassen AE,
    2. Raz E,
    3. Borja MJ, et al

    . Highly time-resolved 4D MR angiography using golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) MRI. Sci Rep 2022;12:15099 doi:10.1038/s41598-022-18191-y pmid:36064872

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Sorin V,
    2. Barash Y,
    3. Konen E, et al

    . Creating artificial images for radiology applications using generative adversarial networks (GANs): a systematic review. Acad Radiol 2020;27:1175–85 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.12.024 pmid:32035758

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Finck T,
    2. Li H,
    3. Grundl L, et al

    . Deep-learning generated synthetic double inversion recovery images improve multiple sclerosis lesion detection. Invest Radiol 2020;55:318–23 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000640 pmid:31977602

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Pang H,
    2. Qi S,
    3. Wu Y, et al

    . NCCT-CECT image synthesizers and their application to pulmonary vessel segmentation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2023;231:107389 doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107389 pmid:36739625

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. You SH,
    2. Cho Y,
    3. Kim B, et al

    . Synthetic time of flight magnetic resonance angiography generation model based on cycle-consistent generative adversarial network using PETRA-MRA in the patients with treated intracranial aneurysm. J Magn Reson Imaging 2022;56:1513–28 doi:10.1002/jmri.28114 pmid:35142407

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Matsuo H,
    2. Nishio M,
    3. Nogami M, et al

    . Unsupervised-learning-based method for chest MRI-CT transformation using structure constrained unsupervised generative attention networks. Sci Rep 2022;12:11090 doi:10.1038/s41598-022-14677-x pmid:35773366

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Wang R,
    2. Bashyam V,
    3. Yang Z, et al

    . Applications of generative adversarial networks in neuroimaging and clinical neuroscience. Neuroimage 2023;269:119898 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119898 pmid:36702211

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Wang Z,
    2. Bovik AC,
    3. Sheikh HR, et al

    . Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 2004;13:600–12 doi:10.1109/tip.2003.819861 pmid:15376593

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. You SH,
    2. Kim B,
    3. Yang K-S, et al

    . Development and validation of visual grading system for stenosis in intracranial atherosclerotic disease on time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography. Eur Radiol 2022;32:2781–90 doi:10.1007/s00330-021-08319-5 pmid:3483937

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Johnson KM

    . Neurovascular magnetic resonance angiography. In: Advances in Magnetic Resonance Technology and Applications. Volume 4, Chap 30. Elsevier; 2021:469–83
23. 23.↵
    1. Ghahramani Z
    2. Welling M
    3. Cortes C, eds., et al

    1. Goodfellow I,
    2. Pouget-Abadie J,
    3. Mirza M, et al

    . Generative adversarial nets. In: Ghahramani Z Welling M Cortes C, eds., et al. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2014). December 8–13, 2014. Montreal, Quebec, Canada
24. 24.↵
    1. Ravindran AV,
    2. Killingsworth MC,
    3. Bhaskar S

    . Cerebral collaterals in acute ischaemia: Implications for acute ischaemic stroke patients receiving reperfusion therapy. Eur J Neurosci 2021;53:1238–61 doi:10.1111/ejn.14955 pmid:32871623

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Wiegers EJ,
    2. Mulder MJ,
    3. Jansen IG, et al

    ; MR CLEAN Trial and MR CLEAN Registry Investigators. Clinical and imaging determinants of collateral status in patients with acute ischemic stroke in MR CLEAN trial and registry. Stroke 2020;51:1493–502 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027483 pmid:32279619

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Kim B,
    2. You SH,
    3. Jung SC

    . A multicenter survey of acute stroke imaging protocols for endovascular thrombectomy. Neurointervention 2021;16:20–28 doi:10.5469/neuroint.2020.00199 pmid:33267533

    CrossRefPubMed