Limits...
Quantifying brain volumes for Multiple Sclerosis patients follow-up in clinical practice - comparison of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Lysandropoulos AP, Absil J, Metens T, Mavroudakis N, Guisset F, Van Vlierberghe E, Smeets D, David P, Maertens A, Van Hecke W - Brain Behav (2016)

Bottom Line: The results are obtained with MSmetrix, which is developed especially for use in the MS clinical care path, and compared to Siena (FSL), a widely used software for research purposes.When data of the same scanner are compared, the error is in the order of 0.06-0.08% for both MSmetrix and Siena.MSmetrix appears robust on both the 1.5T and 3T systems and the measurement error becomes an order of magnitude higher between scanners with different field strength.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurology Hôpital Erasme Université Libre de Bruxelles Anderlecht Belgium.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: There is emerging evidence that brain atrophy is a part of the pathophysiology of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and correlates with several clinical outcomes of the disease, both physical and cognitive. Consequently, brain atrophy is becoming an important parameter in patients' follow-up. Since in clinical practice both 1.5Tesla (T) and 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems are used for MS patients follow-up, questions arise regarding compatibility and a possible need for standardization.

Methods: Therefore, in this study 18 MS patients were scanned on the same day on a 1.5T and a 3T scanner. For each scanner, a 3D T1 and a 3D FLAIR were acquired. As no atrophy is expected within 1 day, these datasets can be used to evaluate the median percentage error of the brain volume measurement for gray matter (GM) volume and parenchymal volume (PV) between 1.5T and 3T scanners. The results are obtained with MSmetrix, which is developed especially for use in the MS clinical care path, and compared to Siena (FSL), a widely used software for research purposes.

Results: The MSmetrix median percentage error of the brain volume measurement between a 1.5T and a 3T scanner is 0.52% for GM and 0.35% for PV. For Siena this error equals 2.99%. When data of the same scanner are compared, the error is in the order of 0.06-0.08% for both MSmetrix and Siena.

Conclusions: MSmetrix appears robust on both the 1.5T and 3T systems and the measurement error becomes an order of magnitude higher between scanners with different field strength.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Schematic representation of MSmetrix, where the T1 and FLAIR of the two scan sessions that need to be compared are first preprocessed. Based on the preprocessed images, the segmentation of WM, GM and CSF is performed together with lesion filling in the second step. The third step is to calculate the volumes and perform the Jacobian modulation and only in the fourth step the actual PBVC is obtained.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834931&req=5

brb3422-fig-0001: Schematic representation of MSmetrix, where the T1 and FLAIR of the two scan sessions that need to be compared are first preprocessed. Based on the preprocessed images, the segmentation of WM, GM and CSF is performed together with lesion filling in the second step. The third step is to calculate the volumes and perform the Jacobian modulation and only in the fourth step the actual PBVC is obtained.

Mentions: MSmetrix is a CE approved automatic method for segmentation of GM, WM, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and white matter lesions based on unsupervised classification, as well as for a longitudinal atrophy measurement of whole brain or parenchymal volume (PV) and GM (Jain et al. 2015). It is an iterative method in order to optimize the segmentations of WM, GM, and CSF based on the WM lesion segmentation and vice versa until convergence of the results. Figure 1 shows a schematic overview of the method.


Quantifying brain volumes for Multiple Sclerosis patients follow-up in clinical practice - comparison of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Lysandropoulos AP, Absil J, Metens T, Mavroudakis N, Guisset F, Van Vlierberghe E, Smeets D, David P, Maertens A, Van Hecke W - Brain Behav (2016)

Schematic representation of MSmetrix, where the T1 and FLAIR of the two scan sessions that need to be compared are first preprocessed. Based on the preprocessed images, the segmentation of WM, GM and CSF is performed together with lesion filling in the second step. The third step is to calculate the volumes and perform the Jacobian modulation and only in the fourth step the actual PBVC is obtained.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834931&req=5

brb3422-fig-0001: Schematic representation of MSmetrix, where the T1 and FLAIR of the two scan sessions that need to be compared are first preprocessed. Based on the preprocessed images, the segmentation of WM, GM and CSF is performed together with lesion filling in the second step. The third step is to calculate the volumes and perform the Jacobian modulation and only in the fourth step the actual PBVC is obtained.
Mentions: MSmetrix is a CE approved automatic method for segmentation of GM, WM, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and white matter lesions based on unsupervised classification, as well as for a longitudinal atrophy measurement of whole brain or parenchymal volume (PV) and GM (Jain et al. 2015). It is an iterative method in order to optimize the segmentations of WM, GM, and CSF based on the WM lesion segmentation and vice versa until convergence of the results. Figure 1 shows a schematic overview of the method.

Bottom Line: The results are obtained with MSmetrix, which is developed especially for use in the MS clinical care path, and compared to Siena (FSL), a widely used software for research purposes.When data of the same scanner are compared, the error is in the order of 0.06-0.08% for both MSmetrix and Siena.MSmetrix appears robust on both the 1.5T and 3T systems and the measurement error becomes an order of magnitude higher between scanners with different field strength.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurology Hôpital Erasme Université Libre de Bruxelles Anderlecht Belgium.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: There is emerging evidence that brain atrophy is a part of the pathophysiology of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and correlates with several clinical outcomes of the disease, both physical and cognitive. Consequently, brain atrophy is becoming an important parameter in patients' follow-up. Since in clinical practice both 1.5Tesla (T) and 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems are used for MS patients follow-up, questions arise regarding compatibility and a possible need for standardization.

Methods: Therefore, in this study 18 MS patients were scanned on the same day on a 1.5T and a 3T scanner. For each scanner, a 3D T1 and a 3D FLAIR were acquired. As no atrophy is expected within 1 day, these datasets can be used to evaluate the median percentage error of the brain volume measurement for gray matter (GM) volume and parenchymal volume (PV) between 1.5T and 3T scanners. The results are obtained with MSmetrix, which is developed especially for use in the MS clinical care path, and compared to Siena (FSL), a widely used software for research purposes.

Results: The MSmetrix median percentage error of the brain volume measurement between a 1.5T and a 3T scanner is 0.52% for GM and 0.35% for PV. For Siena this error equals 2.99%. When data of the same scanner are compared, the error is in the order of 0.06-0.08% for both MSmetrix and Siena.

Conclusions: MSmetrix appears robust on both the 1.5T and 3T systems and the measurement error becomes an order of magnitude higher between scanners with different field strength.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus