Cerebral atrophy measurement in clinically isolated syndromes and relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: A comparison of registration-based methods
Cerebral atrophy measurement in clinically isolated syndromes and relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: A comparison of registration-based methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1552-6569.2006.00081.x
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Fox, Nick C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Anderson, Valerie M.;Fernando, Kryshani T. M.;Fox, Nick C.
背景与目的。脑萎缩是多发性硬化症（MS）疾病进展的一个潜在标志物。存在许多基于磁共振成像的萎缩量化方法，但其相对敏感性和准确性尚不明确。我们的目的是比较脑边界移位积分（BBSI）、使用萎缩标准化的结构图像评估（SIENA）（两者均为基于配准的方法）以及分割脑体积差异在临床孤立综合征（CIS）、复发缓解型多发性硬化症（RRMS）患者和对照组中的萎缩率。
方法。37例CIS患者、30例早期RRMS患者和16例对照在基线和1年后进行了T1加权容积成像。使用分割脑体积差异、BBSI和SIENA测定脑萎缩率。
结果。BBSI和SIENA比分割脑体积相减更准确，且在区分RRMS患者和对照组时更敏感。观察到BBSI和SIENA之间有很强的相关性。CIS和RRMS患者的萎缩率高于对照组（RRMS，P <.001）。使用所有方法，发展为临床确诊MS的CIS患者相较于未发展的患者，均观察到明显更高的萎缩率。
结论。在测量脑萎缩方面，基于配准的技术比基于分割的方法更准确和敏感，BBSI和SIENA提供了相当的结果。
Background and Purpose. Brain atrophy is a proposed marker of disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). Many magnetic resonance imaging-based methods of atrophy quantification exist, but their relative sensitivity and precision is unclear. Our aim was to compare atrophy rates from the brain boundary shift integral (BBSI), structural image evaluation, using normalization of atrophy (SIENA) (both registration-based methods) and segmented brain volume difference, in patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS), relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), and controls. Methods. Thirty-seven CIS patients, 30 with early RRMS and 16 controls had T1-weighted volumetric imaging at baseline and 1 year. Brain atrophy rates were determined using segmented brain volume difference, BBSI, and SIENA. Results. BBSI and SIENA were more precise than subtraction of segmented brain volumes and were more sensitive distinguishing RRMS subjects from controls. A strong correlation was observed between BBSI and SIENA. Atrophy rates were greater in CIS and RRMS subjects than controls (RRMS P < .001). With all methods, significantly greater atrophy rates were observed in CIS patients who developed clinically definite MS relative to subjects who did not. Conclusion. Registration-based techniques are more precise and sensitive than segmentation-based methods in measuring brain atrophy, with BBSI and SIENA providing comparable results.