Tobias Granberg1,2, Gösta Bergendal3,4, Sara Shams1,2, Peter Aspelin1,2, Maria Kristoffersen-Wiberg1,2, Sten Fredrikson1,3,4, Juha Martola1,3,2. 1. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention, and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Neurology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare corpus callosum area (CCA) and corpus callosum index (CCI) in terms of feasibility and their performance as biomarkers for cognitive and physical disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). A secondary aim was to compare these two methods with volumetric measurements. METHODS: This study was based on a cohort of 37 MS patients and a group of age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Physical disability was assessed with the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and cognitive disability with the symbol digit modalities test (SDMT). CCA and CCI were assessed on midsagittal brain MRI by 3 raters with varying radiological experience. Volumes of the brain, gray and white matter, corpus callosum, and MS lesions were acquired with Freesurfer and Lesion Segmentation Toolbox for Statistical Parametric Mapping. RESULTS: CCA and CCI were obtained within seconds with excellent intra- and inter-rater agreement, and outperformed volumetric measurements. CCA had the strongest correlations with both SDMT (r = .82, P < .001) and EDSS (r = -.56, P < .001), and the highest accuracy in differentiating patients from controls (95%) and relapse-remitting MS from progressive forms of MS (77%). CCI performed less well (r = .73, P < .001; r = -.45, P < .001; 94%; 71%). CCA also outperformed the volumetric measurements in these regards. CONCLUSIONS: CCA is a time-effective and robust biomarker that has stronger correlations with both EDSS and information processing speed than CCI and volumetric measurements that are commonly used as outcome measures in MS research and clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To compare corpus callosum area (CCA) and corpus callosum index (CCI) in terms of feasibility and their performance as biomarkers for cognitive and physical disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). A secondary aim was to compare these two methods with volumetric measurements. METHODS: This study was based on a cohort of 37 MS patients and a group of age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Physical disability was assessed with the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and cognitive disability with the symbol digit modalities test (SDMT). CCA and CCI were assessed on midsagittal brain MRI by 3 raters with varying radiological experience. Volumes of the brain, gray and white matter, corpus callosum, and MS lesions were acquired with Freesurfer and Lesion Segmentation Toolbox for Statistical Parametric Mapping. RESULTS: CCA and CCI were obtained within seconds with excellent intra- and inter-rater agreement, and outperformed volumetric measurements. CCA had the strongest correlations with both SDMT (r = .82, P < .001) and EDSS (r = -.56, P < .001), and the highest accuracy in differentiating patients from controls (95%) and relapse-remitting MS from progressive forms of MS (77%). CCI performed less well (r = .73, P < .001; r = -.45, P < .001; 94%; 71%). CCA also outperformed the volumetric measurements in these regards. CONCLUSIONS: CCA is a time-effective and robust biomarker that has stronger correlations with both EDSS and information processing speed than CCI and volumetric measurements that are commonly used as outcome measures in MS research and clinical trials.
Authors: W Reginold; J Itorralba; A C Luedke; J Fernandez-Ruiz; J Reginold; O Islam; A Garcia Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sarah Majercik; Joseph Bledsoe; David Ryser; Ramona O Hopkins; Joseph E Fair; R Brock Frost; Joel MacDonald; Ryan Barrett; Susan Horn; David Pisani; Erin D Bigler; Scott Gardner; Mark Stevens; Michael J Larson Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: René Große-Veldmann; Birte Becker; Sandra Amor; Paul van der Valk; Cordian Beyer; Markus Kipp Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Sean M Tobyne; Daria Boratyn; Jessica A Johnson; Douglas N Greve; Caterina Mainero; Eric C Klawiter Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: David Gomes; Madalena Fonseca; Maria Garrotes; Maria Rita Lima; Marta Mendonça; Mariana Pereira; Miguel Lourenço; Edson Oliveira; José Pedro Lavrador Journal: J Neurosci Rural Pract Date: 2017 Jan-Mar
Authors: Tor-Björn Claesson; Jukka Putaala; Sara Shams; Eero Salli; Daniel Gordin; Ron Liebkind; Carol Forsblom; Paula A Summanen; Turgut Tatlisumak; Per-Henrik Groop; Juha Martola; Lena M Thorn Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 4.003