Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)—phase II

rupture risk assessment

Philipp Berg*, Samuel Voß, Gábor Janiga, Sylvia Saalfeld, Aslak W. Bergersen, Kristian Valen-Sendstad, Jan Bruening, Leonid Goubergrits, Andreas Spuler, Tin Lok Chiu, Anderson Chun On Tsang, Gabriele Copelli, Benjamin Csippa, György Paál, Gábor Závodszky, Felicitas J. Detmer, Bong J. Chung, Juan R. Cebral, Soichiro Fujimura, Hiroyuki Takao & 24 others Christof Karmonik, Saba Elias, Nicole M. Cancelliere, Mehdi Najafi, David A. Steinman, Vitor M. Pereira, Senol Piskin, Ender A. Finol, Mariya Pravdivtseva, Prasanth Velvaluri, Hamidreza Rajabzadeh-Oghaz, Nikhil Paliwal, Hui Meng, Santhosh Seshadhri, Sreenivas Venguru, Masaaki Shojima, Sergey Sindeev, Sergey Frolov, Yi Qian, Yu An Wu, Kent D. Carlson, David F. Kallmes, Dan Dragomir-Daescu, Oliver Beuing

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)


Purpose: Assessing the rupture probability of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remains challenging. Therefore, hemodynamic simulations are increasingly applied toward supporting physicians during treatment planning. However, due to several assumptions, the clinical acceptance of these methods remains limited. Methods: To provide an overview of state-of-the-art blood flow simulation capabilities, the Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH) was conducted. Seventeen research groups from all over the world performed segmentations andhemodynamic simulations to identify the ruptured aneurysm in a patient harboring five IAs. Although simulation setups revealed good similarity, clear differences exist with respect to the analysis of aneurysm shape and blood flow results. Most groups (12/71%) included morphological and hemodynamic parameters in their analysis, with aspect ratio and wall shear stress as the most popular candidates, respectively. Results: The majority of groups (7/41%) selected the largest aneurysm as being the ruptured one. Four (24%) of the participating groups were able to correctly select the ruptured aneurysm, while three groups (18%) ranked the ruptured aneurysm as the second most probable. Successful selections were based on the integration of clinically relevant information such as the aneurysm site, as well as advanced rupture probability models considering multiple parameters. Additionally, flow characteristics such as the quantification of inflow jets and the identification of multiple vortices led to correct predictions. Conclusions: MATCH compares state-of-the-art image-based blood flow simulation approaches to assess the rupture risk of IAs. Furthermore, this challenge highlights the importance of multivariate analyses by combining clinically relevant metadata with advanced morphological and hemodynamic quantification.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1795-1804
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2019



  • Hemodynamic simulation
  • International challenge
  • Intracranial aneurysm
  • Rupture risk

Cite this

Berg, P., Voß, S., Janiga, G., Saalfeld, S., Bergersen, A. W., Valen-Sendstad, K., ... Beuing, O. (2019). Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)—phase II: rupture risk assessment. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 14(10), 1795-1804.