BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Lesion volume change (LVC) assessment is essential in monitoring MS progression. LVC is usually measured by independently segmenting serial MR imaging examinations. Subtraction imaging has been proposed for improved visualization and characterization of lesion change. We compare segmentation of subtraction images (SSEG) with serial single time-point conventional segmentation (CSEG) by assessing the LVC relationship to brain atrophy and disease duration, as well as scan-rescan reproducibility and annual rates of lesion accrual. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pairs of scans were acquired 1.5 to 4.7 years apart in 21 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Scan-rescan MR images were acquired within 30 minutes in 10 patients with MS. LVC was measured with CSEG and SSEG after coregistration and normalization. Coefficient of variation (COV) and Bland-Altman analyses estimated method reproducibility. Spearman rank correlations probed associations between LVC and other measures. RESULTS: Atrophy rate and net LVC were associated for SSEG (R = -0.446; P < .05) but not when using CSEG (R = -0.180; P = .421). Disease duration did not show an association with net lesion volume change per year measured by CSEG (R = -0.360; P = .11) but showed an inverse correlation with SSEG-derived measurements (R = -0.508; P < .05). Scan-rescan COV was lower for SSEG (0.98% +/- 1.55%) than for CSEG (8.64% +/- 9.91%). CONCLUSION: SSEG unveiled a relationship between T2 LVC and concomitant brain atrophy and demonstrated significantly higher measurement reproducibility. SSEG, a promising tool providing detailed analysis of subtle alterations in lesion size and intensity, may provide critical outcome measures for clinical trials of novel treatments, and may provide further insight into progression patterns in MS.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Lesion volume change (LVC) assessment is essential in monitoring MS progression. LVC is usually measured by independently segmenting serial MR imaging examinations. Subtraction imaging has been proposed for improved visualization and characterization of lesion change. We compare segmentation of subtraction images (SSEG) with serial single time-point conventional segmentation (CSEG) by assessing the LVC relationship to brain atrophy and disease duration, as well as scan-rescan reproducibility and annual rates of lesion accrual. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pairs of scans were acquired 1.5 to 4.7 years apart in 21 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Scan-rescan MR images were acquired within 30 minutes in 10 patients with MS. LVC was measured with CSEG and SSEG after coregistration and normalization. Coefficient of variation (COV) and Bland-Altman analyses estimated method reproducibility. Spearman rank correlations probed associations between LVC and other measures. RESULTS:Atrophy rate and net LVC were associated for SSEG (R = -0.446; P < .05) but not when using CSEG (R = -0.180; P = .421). Disease duration did not show an association with net lesion volume change per year measured by CSEG (R = -0.360; P = .11) but showed an inverse correlation with SSEG-derived measurements (R = -0.508; P < .05). Scan-rescan COV was lower for SSEG (0.98% +/- 1.55%) than for CSEG (8.64% +/- 9.91%). CONCLUSION: SSEG unveiled a relationship between T2 LVC and concomitant brain atrophy and demonstrated significantly higher measurement reproducibility. SSEG, a promising tool providing detailed analysis of subtle alterations in lesion size and intensity, may provide critical outcome measures for clinical trials of novel treatments, and may provide further insight into progression patterns in MS.
Authors: P D Molyneux; P S Tofts; A Fletcher; B Gunn; P Robinson; H Gallagher; I F Moseley; G J Barker; D H Miller Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: H L Weiner; C R Guttmann; S J Khoury; E J Orav; M J Hohol; R Kikinis; F A Jolesz Journal: J Neuroimmunol Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: E Fisher; R A Rudick; J H Simon; G Cutter; M Baier; J-C Lee; D Miller; B Weinstock-Guttman; M K Mass; D S Dougherty; N A Simonian Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-11-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Alexandra Kutzelnigg; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Christine Stadelmann; Wolfgang Brück; Helmut Rauschka; Markus Bergmann; Manfred Schmidbauer; Joseph E Parisi; Hans Lassmann Journal: Brain Date: 2005-10-17 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: I Leng Tan; Ronald A van Schijndel; Franz Fazekas; Massimo Filippi; Peter Freitag; David H Miller; Tarek A Yousry; Petra J W Pouwels; Herman J Adèr; Frederik Barkhof Journal: J Neurol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Rohit Bakshi; Alan J Thompson; Maria A Rocca; Daniel Pelletier; Vincent Dousset; Frederik Barkhof; Matilde Inglese; Charles R G Guttmann; Mark A Horsfield; Massimo Filippi Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Bastiaan Moraal; Dominik S Meier; Peter A Poppe; Jeroen J G Geurts; Hugo Vrenken; William M A Jonker; Dirk L Knol; Ronald A van Schijndel; Petra J W Pouwels; Christoph Pohl; Lars Bauer; Rupert Sandbrink; Charles R G Guttmann; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: N Patel; M A Horsfield; C Banahan; A G Thomas; M Nath; J Nath; P B Ambrosi; E M L Chung Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: H Vrenken; M Jenkinson; M A Horsfield; M Battaglini; R A van Schijndel; E Rostrup; J J G Geurts; E Fisher; A Zijdenbos; J Ashburner; D H Miller; M Filippi; F Fazekas; M Rovaris; A Rovira; F Barkhof; N de Stefano Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Marco Battaglini; Hugo Vrenken; Riccardo Tappa Brocci; Giordano Gentile; Ludovico Luchetti; Adriaan Versteeg; Mark S Freedman; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Ludwig Kappos; Giancarlo Comi; Andrea Seitzinger; Dominic Jack; Maria Pia Sormani; Frederik Barkhof; Nicola De Stefano Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 6.288