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.
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.
Authors: D R Altmann; B Jasperse; F Barkhof; K Beckmann; M Filippi; L D Kappos; P Molyneux; C H Polman; C Pozzilli; A J Thompson; K Wagner; T A Yousry; D H Miller Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Christina Engl; Paul Schmidt; Milan Arsic; Christine C Boucard; Viola Biberacher; Michael Röttinger; Thorleif Etgen; Sabine Nunnemann; Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Maximilian Reiser; Eva M Meisenzahl; Mark Mühlau Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Thomas Jenkins; Olga Ciccarelli; Ahmed Toosy; Katherine Miszkiel; Claudia Wheeler-Kingshott; Daniel Altmann; Laura Mancini; Steve Jones; Gordon Plant; David Miller; Alan Thompson Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Kan Ding; Carlos Marquez de la Plata; Jun Yi Wang; Marysa Mumphrey; Carol Moore; Caryn Harper; Christopher J Madden; Roderick McColl; Anthony Whittemore; Michael D Devous; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Maria A Rocca; Federica Agosta; Maria P Sormani; Kryshani Fernando; Mar Tintorè; Tijmen Korteweg; Paola Tortorella; David H Miller; Alan Thompson; Alex Rovira; Xavier Montalban; Chris Polman; Frederik Barkhof; Massimo Filippi Journal: J Neurol Date: 2008-02-18 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Matthew J Kempton; Ulrich Ettinger; Anne Schmechtig; Edward M Winter; Luke Smith; Terry McMorris; Iain D Wilkinson; Steven C R Williams; Marcus S Smith Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: R Zivadinov; A C Banas; V Yella; N Abdelrahman; B Weinstock-Guttman; M G Dwyer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 3.825