| Literature DB >> 24819368 |
Bence Gunda1, Raphael Porcher2, Marco Duering3, Jean-Pierre Guichard4, Jerome Mawet5, Eric Jouvent6, Martin Dichgans7, Hugues Chabriat8.
Abstract
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) histogram metrics are correlated with clinical parameters in cerebral small vessel diseases (cSVD). Whether ADC histogram parameters derived from simple diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) can provide relevant markers for long term studies of cSVD remains unknown. CADASIL patients were evaluated by DWI and DTI in a large cohort study over a 6-year period. ADC histogram parameters were compared to those derived from mean diffusivity (MD) histograms in 280 patients using intra-class correlation and Bland-Altman plots. Impact of image corrections applied to ADC maps was assessed and a mixed effect model was used for analyzing the effects of scanner upgrades. The results showed that ADC histogram parameters are strongly correlated to MD histogram parameters and that image corrections have only limited influence on these results. Unexpectedly, scanner upgrades were found to have major effects on diffusion measures with DWI or DTI that can be even larger than those related to patients' characteristics. These data support that ADC histograms from daily used DWI can provide relevant parameters for assessing cSVD, but the variability related to scanner upgrades as regularly performed in clinical centers should be determined precisely for longitudinal and multicentric studies using diffusion MRI in cSVD.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24819368 PMCID: PMC4018248 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Linear regression analysis of mean value derived from ADC histograms vs mean MD values obtained with DTI after CSF removal (x 10−4 mm2/s) on the GE scanner.
The graph shows the large effects of different scanner versions (software and hardware updates). If the ADC and MD measures appear well correlated overall, the graph illustrates that they clearly depend on the scanner version and are not concordant since all regression lines significantly differ from the perfect concordance line (dashed line).
Correlation coefficients between ADC and MD histogram parameters (n denotes the number of scans); all p-values are less than 0.0001
| MRI/software | Mean w/o CSF | Mean w CSF | Height w/o CSF | Height w CSF | Peak |
| Signa 08 ( | 0.975 | 0.989 | 0.957 | 0.972 | 0.889 |
| Signa 09 ( | 0.681 * | 0.879 | 0.877 | 0.884 | 0.252 ** |
| Signa 11 ( | 0.946 | 0.952 | 0.971 | 0.978 | 0.888 |
| Signa 11 new ( | 0.959 | 0.977 | 0.989 | 0.991 | 0.790 |
| Signa 12+ ( | 0.993 | 0.994 | 0.990 | 0.993 | 0.926 |
Values of 0.935* and 0.779** after removal of two outliers.
Intra-class correlation coefficient between ADC and MD histogram parameters (n denotes the number of scans).
| MRI/software | Mean w/o CSF | Mean w CSF | Height w/o CSF | Height w CSF | Peak |
| Signa 08 (n = 56) | 0.691 | 0.777 | 0.836 | 0.855 | 0.477 |
| Signa 09 (n = 38) | 0.698* | 0.850 | 0.789 | 0.826 | 0.202** |
| Signa 11 (n = 129) | 0.919 | 0.770 | 0.811 | 0.835 | 0.797 |
| Signa 11 new (n = 276) | 0.944 | 0.964 | 0.927 | 0.939 | 0.722 |
| Signa 12+ (n = 204) | 0.990 | 0.986 | 0.986 | 0.990 | 0.904 |
Values of 0.833* and of 0.719** after removal of two outliers.
Intra-class correlation between ADC histogram parameters obtained with and without different image corrections (n denotes the number of scans) (only baseline scans were used in these analyses).
| Removal of CSF | Removal of top/bottom 3 slices | Manual removal of artifacts | |||||||||
| MRI/software |
| Mean | Height |
| Mean | Height | Peak |
| Mean | Height | Peak |
| Signa 08 | 56 | 0.716 | 0.964 | 60 | 0.997 | 0.997 | 0.989 | 60 | 0.990 | 0.989 | 0.962 |
| Signa 09 | 38 | 0.678 | 0.920 | 38 | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.989 | 38 | 0.990 | 0.983 | 0.922 |
| Signa 11 | 129 | 0.723 | 0.963 | 43 | 0.995 | 0.996 | 0.988 | 43 | 0.997 | 0.993 | 0.972 |
| Signa 11 new | 276 | 0.728 | 0.974 | 20 | 0.993 | 0.997 | 0.899 | 81 | 0.991 | 0.996 | 0.947 |
| Signa 12+ | 204 | 0.758 | 0.978 | 40 | 0.998 | 0.998 | 0.969 | 78 | 0.993 | 0.995 | 0.962 |
| Siemens | 48 | 0.997 | 0.995 | 0.977 | 48 | 0.992 | 0.978 | 0.960 | |||
All p-values are less than 0.0001
Figure 2Linear regression analysis of mean value of ADC with and without CSF removal, showing the effects of different scanner versions.
Figure 3Bland–Altman plots for parameters derived from ADC histograms with and without application of different image corrections.
Figure 4Bland–Altman plots for the mean value of ADC vs MD histograms after CSF removal on GE scanners with upgrade Signa 11 new and Signa 12+.
Effects of clinical scores, age and sex (represented by their regression coefficients) compared to the random scanner effect (represented by its standard deviation) on different ADC histogram parameters.
| Clinical score | Rankin | NIHSS | Barthel at 100 | |||
| Coefficient (SE) | P | Coefficient (SE) | P | Coefficient (SE) | P | |
| ADC mean | ||||||
| Score | 0.55 (0.04) | <0.0001 | 0.18 (0.02) | <0.0001 | −1.44 (0.15) | <0.0001 |
| Age | 0.051 (0.006) | <0.0001 | 0.073 (0.006) | <0.0001 | 0.061 (0.006) | <0.0001 |
| Male gender | 0.37 (0.11) | 0.002 | 0.40 (0.13) | 0.002 | 0.49 (0.12) | <0.0001 |
| Random scanner effect | ||||||
| SD of random effect (SE) | 1.01 (0.06) | 0.98 (0.07) | 1.03 (0.05) | |||
| ADC mean without CSF | ||||||
| Score | 0.19 (0.02) | <0.0001 | 0.053 (0.010) | <0.0001 | −0.49 (0.07) | <0.0001 |
| Age | 0.022 (0.003) | <0.0001 | 0.030 (0.003) | <0.0001 | 0.025 (0.003) | <0.0001 |
| Male gender | 0.097 (0.052) | 0.065 | 0.11 (0.06) | 0.049 | 0.14 (0.05) | 0.013 |
| Random scanner effect | ||||||
| SD of random effect (SE) | 0.76 (0.06) | 0.76 (0.06) | 0.76 (0.06) | |||
| ADC peak location | ||||||
| Score | 0.13 (0.02) | <0.0001 | 0.038 (0.011) | <0.0001 | −0.35 (0.08) | <0.0001 |
| Age | 0.012 (0.003) | <0.0001 | 0.017 (0.003) | <0.0001 | 0.014 (0.003) | <0.0001 |
| Male gender | 0.038 (0.061) | 0.54 | 0.048 (0.063) | 0.45 | 0.062 (0.062) | 0.32 |
| Random scanner effect | ||||||
| SD of random effect (SE) | 1.02 (0.07) | 1.02 (0.06) | 1.03 (0.05) | |||
Note that no test was performed for random effects.