Measurement of Whole-Brain and Gray Matter Atrophy in Multiple Sclerosis: Assessment with MR Imaging.
Measurement of Whole-Brain and Gray Matter Atrophy in Multiple Sclerosis: Assessment with MR Imaging.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiol.2018172468
复制
发表时间：
2018-05
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
L. Storelli;M. Rocca;E. Pagani;W. van Hecke;M. Horsfield;N. de Stefano;À. Rovira;J. Sastre-Garriga;Jacqueline A Palace;D. Sima;D. Smeets;M. Filippi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Storelli;M. Rocca;E. Pagani;W. van Hecke;M. Horsfield;N. de Stefano;À. Rovira;J. Sastre-Garriga;Jacqueline A Palace;D. Sima;D. Smeets;M. Filippi
目的比较多发性硬化症(MS)全脑和灰质(GM)萎缩的现有评估方法在重复性(相同的磁共振成像单元)和重复性(不同系统/场强)方面的潜在临床应用价值。材料与方法对软件ANTS-V1.9、CIVET-V2.1、FSL-SIENAX/SIEENA-5.0.1、Icometrix-MSmetrix-1.7、SPM-V12进行比较。这项在2015年3月至2017年3月期间进行的回顾研究收集了以下数据：(A)来自10名健康对照受试者的8幅模拟MR图像和纵向数据(2周)，以评估萎缩测量的横断面和纵向准确性；(B)对29例MS患者在同一天内在不同成像单位场强/制造商下重新测试MR图像，以评估精度；以及(C)24例MS患者的纵向数据(1年)，以确定方法之间的一致性。还评估了组织分割、图像配准和白质(WM)病变填充。采用多重配对t检验进行比较。结果全脑体积和GM体积的准确度较高(0.87~0.97)，MSmetrix的准确率最低。在健康对照组中，ANTS对全脑萎缩的平均误差最低(0.02%)，变异系数为0.5%。SPM对GM萎缩的平均误差(0.07%)和变异系数(0.08%)最小。总的来说，所有方法的重复性都很好(P>；0.05)，但重复性较差(P<；0.05)。WM病变填充技术主要影响ANT、MSmetrix和SPM结果(P<；0.05)。结论通过比较，可以根据应用程序(研究中心、临床试验)的要求及其目标(准确性和重复性或重复性)来选择萎缩测量软件。临床应用需要更好的重复性。©RSNA，2018在线补充材料可供本文使用。
Purpose To compare available methods for whole-brain and gray matter (GM) atrophy estimation in multiple sclerosis (MS) in terms of repeatability (same magnetic resonance [MR] imaging unit) and reproducibility (different system/field strength) for their potential clinical applications. Materials and Methods The softwares ANTs-v1.9, CIVET-v2.1, FSL-SIENAX/SIENA-5.0.1, Icometrix-MSmetrix-1.7, and SPM-v12 were compared. This retrospective study, performed between March 2015 and March 2017, collected data from (a) eight simulated MR images and longitudinal data (2 weeks) from 10 healthy control subjects to assess the cross-sectional and longitudinal accuracy of atrophy measures, (b) test-retest MR images in 29 patients with MS acquired within the same day at different imaging unit field strengths/manufacturers to evaluate precision, and (c) longitudinal data (1 year) in 24 patients with MS for the agreement between methods. Tissue segmentation, image registration, and white matter (WM) lesion filling were also evaluated. Multiple paired t tests were used for comparisons. Results High values of accuracy (0.87-0.97) for whole-brain and GM volumes were found, with the lowest values for MSmetrix. ANTs showed the lowest mean error (0.02%) for whole-brain atrophy in healthy control subjects, with a coefficient of variation of 0.5%. SPM showed the smallest mean error (0.07%) and coefficient of variation (0.08%) for GM atrophy. Globally, good repeatability (P > .05) but poor reproducibility (P < .05) were found for all methods. WM lesion filling technique mainly affected ANTs, MSmetrix, and SPM results (P < .05). Conclusion From this comparison, it would be possible to select a software for atrophy measurement, depending on the requirements of the application (research center, clinical trial) and its goal (accuracy and repeatability or reproducibility). An improved reproducibility is required for clinical application. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.