BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MRI-based quantification of gray and white matter volume is common in studies involving elderly patient populations. The aim of the present study was to describe the effects of not accounting for subcortical white matter hyperintensities (WMH) on tissue volumes in Alzheimer Disease patients with varying degrees of WMH (mild: n=19, moderate: n=22, severe: n=18). METHODS: An automated tissue segmentation protocol that was optimized for an elderly population, a brain regional parcellation procedure, and a lesion segmentation protocol were applied to measure tissue volumes (whole brain and regional lobar volumes) with and without lesion segmentation to quantify the volume of misclassified tissue. RESULTS: After application of the tissue segmentation protocol and lesion analysis, mean total percentage misclassified volume across all subjects was 2% (17.9 cm(3)) of whole brain volume (corrected for total intracranial capacity). Mean percentage of misclassified tissue volumes for the severe group was 4.8% of whole brain, which translates to a mean volume 42.2 cm(3). Gray matter volume was most overestimated in the severe group, where 6.4% of the total gray matter volume was derived from misclassified WMH. The regional analysis showed that frontal (41%, 7.4 cm(3)) and inferior parietal (18%, 3.25 cm(3)) lobes were most affected by tissue misclassification. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based volumetric studies of Alzheimer Disease that do not account for WMH can expect an erroneous inflation of gray or white matter volumes, especially in the frontal and inferior parietal regions. To avoid this source of error, MRI-based volumetric studies in patient populations susceptible to hyperintensities should include a WMH segmentation protocol.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MRI-based quantification of gray and white matter volume is common in studies involving elderly patient populations. The aim of the present study was to describe the effects of not accounting for subcortical white matter hyperintensities (WMH) on tissue volumes in Alzheimer Diseasepatients with varying degrees of WMH (mild: n=19, moderate: n=22, severe: n=18). METHODS: An automated tissue segmentation protocol that was optimized for an elderly population, a brain regional parcellation procedure, and a lesion segmentation protocol were applied to measure tissue volumes (whole brain and regional lobar volumes) with and without lesion segmentation to quantify the volume of misclassified tissue. RESULTS: After application of the tissue segmentation protocol and lesion analysis, mean total percentage misclassified volume across all subjects was 2% (17.9 cm(3)) of whole brain volume (corrected for total intracranial capacity). Mean percentage of misclassified tissue volumes for the severe group was 4.8% of whole brain, which translates to a mean volume 42.2 cm(3). Gray matter volume was most overestimated in the severe group, where 6.4% of the total gray matter volume was derived from misclassified WMH. The regional analysis showed that frontal (41%, 7.4 cm(3)) and inferior parietal (18%, 3.25 cm(3)) lobes were most affected by tissue misclassification. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based volumetric studies of Alzheimer Disease that do not account for WMH can expect an erroneous inflation of gray or white matter volumes, especially in the frontal and inferior parietal regions. To avoid this source of error, MRI-based volumetric studies in patient populations susceptible to hyperintensities should include a WMH segmentation protocol.
Authors: François De Guio; Marco Duering; Franz Fazekas; Frank-Erik De Leeuw; Steven M Greenberg; Leonardo Pantoni; Agnès Aghetti; Eric E Smith; Joanna Wardlaw; Eric Jouvent Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Emily R Lindemer; David H Salat; Eric E Smith; Khoa Nguyen; Bruce Fischl; Douglas N Greve Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Helmet T Karim; Carmen Andreescu; Rebecca L MacCloud; Meryl A Butters; Charles F Reynolds; Howard J Aizenstein; Dana L Tudorascu Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Ana Sanjuán; Cathy J Price; Laura Mancini; Goulven Josse; Alice Grogan; Adam K Yamamoto; Sharon Geva; Alex P Leff; Tarek A Yousry; Mohamed L Seghier Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Eric E Smith; Geert J Biessels; Charlotte Cordonnier; Franz Fazekas; Richard Frayne; Richard I Lindley; John T O'Brien; Frederik Barkhof; Oscar R Benavente; Sandra E Black; Carol Brayne; Monique Breteler; Hugues Chabriat; Charles Decarli; Frank-Erik de Leeuw; Fergus Doubal; Marco Duering; Nick C Fox; Steven Greenberg; Vladimir Hachinski; Ingo Kilimann; Vincent Mok; Robert van Oostenbrugge; Leonardo Pantoni; Oliver Speck; Blossom C M Stephan; Stefan Teipel; Anand Viswanathan; David Werring; Christopher Chen; Colin Smith; Mark van Buchem; Bo Norrving; Philip B Gorelick; Martin Dichgans Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 44.182