AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Choyke, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Summers, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Choyke, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Summers, R. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2001; 176:465-470
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Hepatic MR Angiography

A Multiobserver Comparison of Visualization Methods

Peter L. Choyke1, Peter Yim1, Hani Marcos1, Vincent B. Ho2, Rakesh Mullick1 and Ronald M. Summers1

1 Diagnostic Radiology Department, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bldg. 10, Rm. 1C660, Bethesda, MD 20892-1182.
2 Department of Radiology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Rd., Bethesda, MD 20814-4799.

Received March 31, 2000; accepted after revision August 2, 2000.

 
Address correspondence to P.L. Choyke.


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. MR angiography (MRA) is an established diagnostic method; however, controversy remains over the best technique for display. In this study, we compared five methods of depicting hepatic MRA, including a novel skeletonization approach, using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, interobserver variability (kappa values), and speed of interpretation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Twenty-one patients scheduled for isolated liver perfusion therapy for metastatic disease underwent contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MRA to determine vascular anatomy. Vascular anatomy was validated at the time of surgery. We displayed the image data, using five techniques: maximum intensity projection, targeted maximum intensity projection, isointensity surface (isosurface), connected isointensity surface (connected isosurface), and ordered region growing skeleton (skeleton). Four observers, blinded to the surgical results, interpreted each technique in random order without patient identifiers. Areas under the ROC curves, kappa values of interobserver variability, and time to interpret each display were compared.

RESULTS. Skeletonized MRA had the highest area under the ROC curve (Az, 0.90 ± 0.04) compared with the other techniques (p < 0.013). Kappa scores of agreement were also highest for skeletonized MRA (0.75 ± 0.04) and had no overlap at the 95% confidence level compared with other techniques. Compared with source images, all visualization methods were faster to interpret, but the skeleton technique was more quickly (p = 0.04) interpreted than the other techniques.

CONCLUSION. Skeletonized MRA with the skeleton connectivity algorithm is a semi-automated method of displaying complex arterial anatomy. Compared with other techniques, it is more accurate, more consistent among observers, and slightly faster to interpret. Skeletonization should be applicable to CT angiography and MRA.


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
MR angiography (MRA) is rapidly becoming a standard diagnostic method because it accurately depicts the vascular tree, is relatively noninvasive, uses a contrast agent that is not nephrotoxic, and does not involve ionizing radiation [1, 2]. MRA is typically composed of multiple thin sections (source images) that are viewed individually and then presented as a maximum intensity projection. The maximum-intensity-projection algorithm depicts the pixels with maximal signal intensity along any given projection ray and displays them as a two-dimensional projection [3]. Although maximum intensity projections satisfactorily depict large vessels, they may not reveal small vessels that have relatively lower signal intensity due to partial volume effects and, therefore, may be obscured by averaging with surrounding tissue [4]. Suboptimal image quality worsens the problem. This may occur when the timing of the gadolinium bolus does not match the acquisition of MRA or there is respiratory blurring artifact. Moreover, because maximum intensity projections are displayed as two-dimensional projections, overlapping vessels can be difficult to distinguish. This limitation can be overcome in some, but not all, cases by interactively rotating the maximum intensity projection or by obtaining the maximum-intensity-projection image from only a limited portion of the imaging data set (also known as a targeted or subvolume maximum intensity projection). A common solution to this problem is to individually examine each of the source images constituting the MR angiogram. This task is time-consuming, requires the use of a work-station, and may result in piecemeal depiction of the vascular tree.

There are several alternatives to the maximum intensity projection. One is the isosurface display that generates a three-dimensional (3D) surface display on the basis of a predetermined threshold value [3]. This technique can be improved by selecting an origin (seed point) and requiring that any generated surface must be in continuity with the seed point (connected isosurface), but otherwise the technique is identical to the isosurface display [3, 5]. Another vessel-mapping technique based on the skeleton technique has recently been proposed [6]. In this method, the user defines both the start and endpoint of the vessel, and an algorithm generates the most likely pathways connecting them. A skeleton of the vascular tree depicting the vessel's centerline is produced. The skeletonized angiogram can be superimposed on the maximum intensity projection or viewed separately as a 3D shaded-surface display. Skeletonization highlights vessels that might otherwise be inconspicuous on the maximum intensity projection. Individual vessels can be selectively color encoded to simplify display.

In our study, we compared five methods of depicting hepatic MRA data for accuracy, inter-observer agreement, and speed of interpretation.


Subjects and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Our study was approved by the institution review board and was part of a larger study designed to evaluate isolated hepatic arterial perfusion with hyperthermic chemotherapy for liver metastases for melanoma (n = 9), colon carcinoma (n = 8), neuroendocrine tumor (n = 2), and sarcoma (n = 2). No patients had underlying liver disease such as cirrhosis. Exclusion criteria included poor performance status and extrahepatic metastases. Accurate assessment of the vessels is needed to plan the placement of perfusion catheters. Twenty-one consecutive patients undergoing isolated hepatic perfusion had hepatic MRA before surgery, and arterial anatomy was confirmed intraoperatively. The surgeon carefully dissected and inspected the vessels arising from the celiac axis and superior mesenteric artery to verify the arterial anatomy. Perfusion catheters were placed in each major vessel supplying the liver.

The MRA protocol was as follows: all scans were obtained on a 1.5-T MR unit with a peak gradient strength of 23 mT/m and a maximal slew rate of 120 T·m-1·sec-1 (Echospeed; General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). A 20- to 22-gauge IV catheter was placed in an arm vein before the patient entered the scanner. The catheter was attached to a dual-headed power injector (Spectris; Medrad, Pittsburgh, PA) loaded with a nonionic MR contrast agent, gadoteridol (ProHance; Bracco Diagnostics, Princeton, NJ). The injector was set to inject contrast agent at a rate of 2 mL/sec for a total of 0.2 mmol/kg (22-40 mL) followed by a 20-mL flush of 0.9% saline at 2 mL/sec. This injection rate was selected because it approximately matched the time of acquisition yet did not cause susceptibility or K-space modulation effects [1]. Breath-hold 3D spoiled gradient-echo imaging (TR/TE, 5.2/1.4; flip angle, 45°; field of view, 35-42 cm; bandwidth, 32 kHz; acquisition, 1; matrix size, 256 x 128; slices, 28 in 34 sec) was performed. Lines of K-space were acquired sequentially so that the center of the K-space was in the middle of the acquisition. Each slice was 2.5- to 4-mm thick depending on the size of the patient. In all patients, acquisition began after a standard delay of 15 sec from the beginning of the injection.

Image Analysis
Each entire 3D data set was composed of a series of 56 coronal source images. The following image analysis algorithms were applied to the source images (Figs. 1A,1B,1C,1D,1E,1F and 2A,2B,2C,2D,2E,2F): maximum intensity projection, targeted maximum intensity projection, isosurface, isointensity surfaces constrained with a starting seed placed over the origins of the celiac and superior mesenteric arteries (connected isosurfaces), and skeletons superimposed on maximum intensity projections. All algorithms were produced on a Unix-based workstation (Onyx; Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, CA). The following visualization methods were generated.



View larger version (136K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1A. 47-year-old man with colon carcinoma and metastases to liver. Hepatic MR angiograms show normal arterial anatomy. Maximum-intensity-projection image shows arterial supply poorly.

 


View larger version (113K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1B. 47-year-old man with colon carcinoma and metastases to liver. Hepatic MR angiograms show normal arterial anatomy. Targeted maximum-intensity-projection images show portions of hepatic anatomy.

 


View larger version (121K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1C. 47-year-old man with colon carcinoma and metastases to liver. Hepatic MR angiograms show normal arterial anatomy. Targeted maximum-intensity-projection images show portions of hepatic anatomy.

 


View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1D. 47-year-old man with colon carcinoma and metastases to liver. Hepatic MR angiograms show normal arterial anatomy. Isointensity surface rendering shows incomplete hepatic vessels because of thresholding.

 


View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1E. 47-year-old man with colon carcinoma and metastases to liver. Hepatic MR angiograms show normal arterial anatomy. Connected isointensity surface rendering markedly truncates vascular anatomy.

 


View larger version (85K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1F. 47-year-old man with colon carcinoma and metastases to liver. Hepatic MR angiograms show normal arterial anatomy. Skeleton shows celiac and hepatic arteries in red and superior mesenteric artery in blue. Arteries are more reliably detected with skeletonization.

 


View larger version (132K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2A. 54-year-old woman with ocular melanoma. Hepatic MR angiograms show aberrant vascular anatomy with replaced right hepatic artery. Maximum-intensity-projection image shows hepatic artery and superior mesenteric artery, but origin of hepatic artery is ambiguous.

 


View larger version (134K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2B. 54-year-old woman with ocular melanoma. Hepatic MR angiograms show aberrant vascular anatomy with replaced right hepatic artery. Targeted maximum-intensity-projection images show origin of right hepatic artery from superior mesenteric artery.

 


View larger version (145K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2C. 54-year-old woman with ocular melanoma. Hepatic MR angiograms show aberrant vascular anatomy with replaced right hepatic artery. Targeted maximum-intensity-projection images show origin of right hepatic artery from superior mesenteric artery.

 


View larger version (65K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2D. 54-year-old woman with ocular melanoma. Hepatic MR angiograms show aberrant vascular anatomy with replaced right hepatic artery. Isointensity surface rendering shows origin of right hepatic artery from superior mesenteric artery, but image has distracting clutter.

 


View larger version (57K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2E. 54-year-old woman with ocular melanoma. Hepatic MR angiograms show aberrant vascular anatomy with replaced right hepatic artery. Connected isointensity surface rendering shows aberrant right hepatic artery with less clutter than isointensity surface.

 


View larger version (91K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2F. 54-year-old woman with ocular melanoma. Hepatic MR angiograms show aberrant vascular anatomy with replaced right hepatic artery. Skeletonized MR angiogram shows hepatic artery arising from superior mesenteric artery. Smaller branches are better visualized than with other techniques. Observers had higher confidence with skeletonized angiography than with other techniques.

 

Maximum intensity projection.—A projection image was obtained in a coronal plane that consisted of the points of maximum intensity along projected rays. The window and level of the maximum intensity projection were adjusted to accentuate the arteries.

Targeted maximum intensity projection.—Thin-section maximum intensity projections were generated to eliminate extraneous signal intensity from nonvascular tissue. Three targeted maximum intensity projections, each roughly encompassing a third of the coronal slices, were used. The window or level was adjusted separately for each targeted maximum intensity projection to emphasize the arteries.

Isosurfaces.—In this method of display, a mesh of triangles was first developed with an isosurface contour tool. The vertices were all located within points with the same interpolated image intensity. Lighting and shading were added to produce a 3D effect. Preset threshold values were used to generate isosurfaces at 20%, 25%, and 30% of the maximum voxel intensity in the image.

Connected isosurface.—A surface rendering was generated as previously described with the constraint that the isosurface must be in continuity with a seed point placed by the user. Seed points were placed over origins of the celiac and superior mesenteric arteries and propagated over the isosurface. This procedure reduced background scatter and improved the depiction of the vessels.

Skeletons.—To generate a skeleton [7], the user established the seed point and endpoint of each vessel on source images, and the skeleton algorithm determined the most likely path connecting those points and produced a skeleton of the vessel. Starting seed points were placed on the celiac and superior mesenteric artery origins on the source images. Endpoints were placed on the small distal vessels seen on source images. One author generated the skeletons. The connected paths followed the geometric centerlines of the vessels. The skeletons were superimposed on the maximum intensity projection for display purposes. Once the connectivity pattern was established, in approximately 4 min, the operator determined if an unsatisfactory path was produced because of either inaccurate specification of the endpoint, absence of the vascular path due to the limited field of view of the image, or other problems causing errors in the connectivity structure. An anomalous result was obvious to the operator because it created a chaotic path. The skeleton was transformed to a tapered tubular-surface mesh that was shaded (to provide depth cues), and each vessel was selectively colorized. The celiac artery and its branches were color-encoded red; the superior mesenteric artery was color-encoded blue to distinguish the two vessel trees. The user indicated the origin of the celiac and superior mesenteric artery. The shaded surface derived from the skeleton downstream from that point was then selectively colorized. The selection of the origin of the vessel for this purpose was done independently from the selection of the seed points of the skeleton.

Observer Study
Four observers who were unaware of the surgical results reviewed each method of display in random order on a workstation. Each observer was asked to identify (if present) the main hepatic artery, right hepatic artery, left hepatic artery, replaced right hepatic artery, accessory left hepatic artery arising from the left gastric artery, and the superior mesenteric artery. If the vessel was not present, it was assigned a score of zero. If the vessel could be identified, a confidence rating ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = not confident, 5 = very confident) was assigned.

A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated for each method of displaying the hepatic arterial anatomy, and the area under the ROC curve (Az) was calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of each display method were determined with different thresholds for positivity or negativity (i.e., >=1, >=2). Additionally, interobserver variability was determined for paired reviewers with kappa scores. The time for each observer to interpret each method was recorded. Data were analyzed with statistical software (Analyze-It version. 1.44; Analyze-It Software, Leeds, UK).


Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Seventeen patients had typical anatomy (i.e., a single proper hepatic artery giving rise to right and left hepatic arteries and a separate superior mesenteric artery). Two patients had accessory left hepatic arteries, and three had replaced right hepatic arteries (one patient had both an accessory left and replaced right hepatic artery) (Figs. 1A,1B,1C,1D,1E,1F and 2A,2B,2C,2D,2E,2F).

The ROC analysis (Table 1 and Fig. 3) showed superior performance for skeletons compared with maximum intensity projection, targeted maximum intensity projection, isosurface, and connected isosurface renderings. Skeletonized MR angiograms had the highest area under the ROC curve (Az, 0.90 ± 0.04) compared with the other techniques, (connected isosurface, 0.83 ± 0.05; targeted maximum intensity projection, 0.82 ± 0.05; maximum intensity projection, 0.79 ± 0.05; isosurface, 0.78 ± 0.06). Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant differences between the performance of the skeleton and the next best technique, connected isosurfaces (p = 0.013). Pairwise comparisons between Az skeleton and the other techniques varied in significance from a p value of 0.001 to a p value of 0.0001 (Fig. 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1 Az Values for Multiobserver Study

 


View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3. Graph shows receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for visualization methods. Skeletons display best performance and highest area under the curve (Az) value. {diamondsuit} = skeleton, {blacksquare} = isosurface, {blacktriangleup} = targeted maximum intensity projection, [UNK] = connected isosurface, [UNK] = maximum intensity projection.

 

Kappa scores of agreement were also highest for skeletonized MRA (0.75 ± 0.04) compared with the other techniques (maximum intensity projection, 0.58 ± 0.05; connected isosurface, 0.55 ± 0.05; isosurface, 0.42 ± 0.06; targeted maximum intensity projection, 0.37 ± 0.07). The 95% confidence intervals (CI) showed no overlap between kappa scores for skeletons and those of the other techniques (Fig. 4).



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4. Bar chart shows kappa scores for five visualization methods. a versus b (gray) and c versus d (black) = two reviewers' pairwise comparisons of five methods, mean (white) = average values for all comparisons.

 

Compared with source images, all visualization methods were faster to interpret, but skeletons were more quickly interpreted than the other techniques (p = 0.04). The times to interpret for skeletons were 24.2 ± 3.8 sec; maximum intensity projection, 28.5 ± 4.0 sec; connected isosurface, 28.4 ± 3.4 sec; isosurface, 32.4 ± 3.3 sec; targeted maximum intensity projection, 39.2 ± 4.5 sec. The interpretation time was significantly different between skeletons and the next fastest technique (p = 0.04), connected isosurfaces, but the absolute magnitude of the difference was small (4.2 sec). As we predicted, interpreting the source images took the longest time with a mean time of 82 sec (95% CI, 72-108%). Image-generation times varied with the case. The maximum intensity projection took only about 10-20 sec, whereas the targeted maximum intensity projection could take an additional 1-5 min of user interaction. The pure isosurfaces varied from 2 to 8 min, and the connected isosurface took from 30 sec to 4 min. The skeleton took 6-10 min of processing.

An overall sensitivity and specificity for aberrant anatomy were determined for each technique by averaging each reviewer's response and by considering a score of 3 or higher as positive. The sensitivities and specificities, respectively, for aberrant anatomy for each of the techniques were as follows: maximum intensity projection, 56% and 92%; the targeted maximum intensity projection, 57% and 95%; isosurface, 62% and 89%; connected isosurface, 69% and 94%; and skeleton, 88% and 90%.


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
This study illustrates several advantages of using skeletons of MR angiograms compared with other methods. The results of Az values of the ROC curves show that skeletons performed better than other techniques in depicting hepatic arterial anatomy. Skeletons also revealed the lowest interobserver variability, indicating that observers tended to agree more with each other about the results of the skeletons than about the results of the other techniques. The combination of improved accuracy of depiction combined with better interobserver agreement means that skeletons may better display hepatic MR angiographic data. Skeletons were also faster to interpret and reflected the relative ease with which the vessels could be identified, but the improvement, in this case, was small and was probably not a decisive factor. The other methods of depicting MR angiograms have advantages and disadvantages. The maximum intensity projection is universally available and is not computationally intensive. Its disadvantages are that it tends to truncate small vessels as a result of partial volume effects, and image noise can produce spurious results. Maximum intensity projections can be improved by targeting or segmentation to include specific slices, but this procedure commonly results in an in-complete depiction of vessels and requires an informed user. The isosurface display has the advantages of providing 3D vascular depiction with a realistic display of depth; however, this technique relies on the user selecting a threshold value, the choice of which is inherently subjective and often leads to truncation artifacts. Moreover, the isosurface is prone to noise because it displays nonvascular structures of similar intensity. The addition of seed points to constrain the isosurface along vascular surfaces decreases background noise and leads to improved kappa scores (from 0.42 to 0.55) and improves the Az from the ROC curve (from 0.78 to 0.83) but does not overcome the other limitations of isointensity surfaces.

Other methods have been proposed to improve the rendering of vessels from 3D data sets. Filtering techniques attempt to suppress background signal intensity to decrease the likelihood that the maximum intensity projection will detect nonvascular high signal intensity [8,9,10,11,12]. These methods show promise in improving depiction of anatomy but do not address problems related to high-signal-intensity overlapping structures that limit the vascular anatomy that is displayed. Moreover, they do not permit higher level visualization methods such as 3D surface shading and colorization. The skeleton algorithm generates skeletons by identifying vascular-tree patterns in contiguous pixels. Skeleton technique applies rule-based algorithms that follow the course of a vessel through its geometric centerline. Several previous methods of vessel tracking have encountered difficulties at bifurcations, but this problem does not occur in skeletons [13]. Skeletons do not truncate small vessels as severely as maximum-intensity-projection algorithms do.

Skeletonization also has limitations. It requires an informed user to identify the origins and endpoints of vessels. However, this task is no more difficult than evaluating source images and, in fact, could easily be integrated into a source-image review. Some bias may have been introduced in this study because one of the reviewers created the skeletons interpreted by the other reviewers, but the study does show that the technique produces less variability in interpretation than the other visualization methods. Additionally, the actual diameter of the vessel can now be depicted on the skeleton with the centerline as the backbone of the skeleton [13]. Another limitation is that if the signal-to-noise ratio of the original MR angiogram is poor or is highly degraded by motion, the algorithm may not "find" an accurate vascular pathway. This problem may also occur with occluded arterial segments. The technique is also moderately computer-intensive, but recent improvements in computing power make this disadvantage minor. For instance, we have implemented the algorithm on a desktop 500-MHz Windows NT computer (Optiplex; Dell, Austin, TX) that requires processing times of only about 2 min. Finally, the complexity of using a noncommercial image-processing algorithm may discourage its implementation outside research settings. To encourage its use, we will make the technique available at www.cc.nih.gov/drd/software.html.

MRA is a valuable noninvasive method of depicting the hepatic arterial tree [14,15,16]. Skeletonization improves the reproducibility, accuracy, and time for interpretation of hepatic MRA. Skeletonization could have broad applicability not only for revealing hepatic vessels but also for depicting other vascular distributions. Moreover, it should be directly applicable to other methods of 3D angiographic methods such as CT angiography [17].

In conclusion, skeletonization of MRA based on connectivity algorithms is a new method for displaying 3D MR angiographic data. Compared with other existing techniques, it improves reviewer confidence, decreases interobserver variability, and decreases the time of interpretation. Skeletonization is likely to be most useful in the display of small-and intermediate-sized vessels.


Acknowledgments
 
We thank Barbara McCoy for her assistance in preparing this manuscript.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Prince MR. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: theory and optimization. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1998;6:257 -267[Medline]
  2. Prince MR. Body MR angiography with gadolinium contrast agents. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1996;4:11 -24[Medline]
  3. Cline HE, Lorensen WE, Herfkens RJ, Johnson GA, Glover GH. Vascular morphology by three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1989;7:45 -54[Medline]
  4. Anderson CM, Saloner D, Tsuruda JS, Shapeero LG, Lee RE. Artifacts in maximum-intensity-projection display of MR angiograms. AJR 1990;154:623 -629[Free Full Text]
  5. Cline HE, Lorensen WE, Kikinis R, Jolesz R. Three-dimensional segmentation of MR images of the head using probability and connectivity. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:1037 -1045[Medline]
  6. Yim PJ, Summers RM, Choyke PL. Gray scale skeletonization of small vessels in magnetic resonance angiograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000;19:568 -576[Medline]
  7. Yim PJ, Choyke PL, Summers RM. Enhancement of the magnetic resonance angiogram. (abstr) Ann Biomed Eng 1998;26:S4
  8. Du YP, Parker DL, Davis WL. Vessel enhancement filtering in three-dimensional MR angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995;5:353 -359[Medline]
  9. Du YP, Parker DL. Vessel enhancement filtering in three-dimensional MR angiograms using long-range signal correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:447 -450[Medline]
  10. Korosec FR, Weber DM, Mistretta CA, Turski PA, Bernstein MA. A data adaptive reprojection technique for MR angiography. Magn Reson Med 1992;24:262 -274[Medline]
  11. Sato Y, Shiraga N, Nakajima S, Tamura S, Kikinis R. Local maximum intensity projection (LMIP): a new rendering method for vascular visualization. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998;22:912 -917[Medline]
  12. Lin W, Haacke EM, Masaryk TJ, Smith AS. Automated local maximum intensity projection with three dimensional vessel tracking. J Magn Reson Imaging 1992;2:519 -526[Medline]
  13. Aylward S, Bullit E, Pizer S, Eberly D. Intensity ridge and widths for tubular object segmentation and description. Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop, Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis, 1996: 112-125
  14. Earls JP, Rofsky NM, DeCorato DR, Krinsky GA, Weinreb JC. Hepatic arterial-phase dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging: optimization with a test examination and a power injector. Radiology 1997;202:268 -273[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Ward J, Guthrie AJ, Hughes T, Baudouin CJ, Pollard S, Robinson PJ. Anatomy of the arterial supply to the liver demonstrated by MRI. Eur Radiol 1997;7:893 -899[Medline]
  16. Kopka L, Rodenwaldt J, Vosshenrich R, et al. Hepatic blood supply: comparison of optimized dual phase contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 1999;211:51 -58[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Winter TC III, Nghiem HV, Freeny PC, Hommeyer SC, Mack LA. Hepatic arterial anatomy: demonstration of normal supply and vascular variants with three-dimensional CT angiography. RadioGraphics 1995;15:77 -80

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. K. Kim, J. H. Kim, S.-J. Bae, and K.-S. Cho
CT Angiography for Evaluation of Living Renal Donors: Comparison of Four Reconstruction Methods
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2004; 183(2): 471 - 477.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
B. F. Tomandl, N. C. Kostner, M. Schempershofe, W. J. Huk, C. Strauss, L. Anker, and P. Hastreiter
CT Angiography of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Focus on Postprocessing
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2004; 24(3): 637 - 655.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
B. F. Tomandl, P. Hastreiter, S. Iserhardt-Bauer, N. C. Kostner, M. Schempershofe, W. J. Huk, T. Ertl, C. Strauss, and J. Romstock
Standardized Evaluation of CT Angiography with Remote Generation of 3D Video Sequences for the Detection of Intracranial Aneurysms
RadioGraphics, March 1, 2003; 23(2): e12 - e12.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. M. Covey, L. A. Brody, M. A. Maluccio, G. I. Getrajdman, and K. T. Brown
Variant Hepatic Arterial Anatomy Revisited: Digital Subtraction Angiography Performed in 600 Patients
Radiology, August 1, 2002; 224(2): 542 - 547.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Choyke, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Summers, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Choyke, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Summers, R. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS