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

Bland–Altman plots of the comparison MSmetrix versus SIENA on the same datasets for the 1.5T within scanner (A), 3T within scanner (B), and 1.5T versus 3T between scanner (C) comparisons. On the Y‐axis of all plots, the difference of the absolute value of the measurement errors is calculated as ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’, on the X‐axis of all plots the mean of MSmetrix and SIENA is displayed. Purple dots were used when ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ is positive, red dots when this difference is negative. In addition, the histogram of the ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ difference is shown on the right of each Bland–Altman plot.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

brb3422-fig-0004: Bland–Altman plots of the comparison MSmetrix versus SIENA on the same datasets for the 1.5T within scanner (A), 3T within scanner (B), and 1.5T versus 3T between scanner (C) comparisons. On the Y‐axis of all plots, the difference of the absolute value of the measurement errors is calculated as ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’, on the X‐axis of all plots the mean of MSmetrix and SIENA is displayed. Purple dots were used when ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ is positive, red dots when this difference is negative. In addition, the histogram of the ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ difference is shown on the right of each Bland–Altman plot.

Mentions: In Figure 4, the Bland–Altman plots of the absolute value of the measurement error are displayed for the intrascanner comparison at 1.5T (Fig. 4A), the intrascanner comparison at 3T (Fig. 4B), and the between scanner (1.5T vs. 3T) comparison (Fig. 4C). As the difference of the absolute measurement error for ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ is calculated, a positive difference indicates a smaller error for SIENA compared to MSmetrix (purple dots) and a negative difference presents a smaller error for MSmetrix compared to SIENA (red dots). In addition, a histogram of the MSmetrix‐SIENA difference for the absolute value of the measure error is shown at the right side of each Bland–Altman plot.


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)

Bland–Altman plots of the comparison MSmetrix versus SIENA on the same datasets for the 1.5T within scanner (A), 3T within scanner (B), and 1.5T versus 3T between scanner (C) comparisons. On the Y‐axis of all plots, the difference of the absolute value of the measurement errors is calculated as ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’, on the X‐axis of all plots the mean of MSmetrix and SIENA is displayed. Purple dots were used when ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ is positive, red dots when this difference is negative. In addition, the histogram of the ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ difference is shown on the right of each Bland–Altman plot.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

brb3422-fig-0004: Bland–Altman plots of the comparison MSmetrix versus SIENA on the same datasets for the 1.5T within scanner (A), 3T within scanner (B), and 1.5T versus 3T between scanner (C) comparisons. On the Y‐axis of all plots, the difference of the absolute value of the measurement errors is calculated as ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’, on the X‐axis of all plots the mean of MSmetrix and SIENA is displayed. Purple dots were used when ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ is positive, red dots when this difference is negative. In addition, the histogram of the ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ difference is shown on the right of each Bland–Altman plot.
Mentions: In Figure 4, the Bland–Altman plots of the absolute value of the measurement error are displayed for the intrascanner comparison at 1.5T (Fig. 4A), the intrascanner comparison at 3T (Fig. 4B), and the between scanner (1.5T vs. 3T) comparison (Fig. 4C). As the difference of the absolute measurement error for ‘MSmetrix – SIENA’ is calculated, a positive difference indicates a smaller error for SIENA compared to MSmetrix (purple dots) and a negative difference presents a smaller error for MSmetrix compared to SIENA (red dots). In addition, a histogram of the MSmetrix‐SIENA difference for the absolute value of the measure error is shown at the right side of each Bland–Altman plot.

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