Zheng Liu1, Özgür Yaldizli2, Matteo Pardini3, Varun Sethi2, Hugh Kearney2, Nils Muhlert2, Claudia Wheeler-Kingshott2, David H Miller2, Declan T Chard4. 1. Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, UCL Institute of Neurology, UK; Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University, Beijing 100053, China. 2. Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, UCL Institute of Neurology, UK. 3. Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, UCL Institute of Neurology, UK; Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 4. Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, UCL Institute of Neurology, UK; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), University College London Hospitals (UCLH), Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Electronic address: d.chard@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In multiple sclerosis (MS), recent work suggests that cervical cord atrophy is more consistently correlated with physical disability than brain white matter lesion load and atrophy. Although spinal cord imaging has not been routinely obtained in many clinical trial and research studies, brain volumetric imaging usually has and includes the upper cervical cord. OBJECTIVES: Using volumetric T1-weighted brain images, we investigated cross-sectional area measures in the uppermost cervical cord and compared them with areas at the standard C2/3 level. METHODS: Using T1-weighted brain scans from 13 controls and 37 people with MS, and an active surface technique, cross-sectional area was measured over 5mm and 1mm cord segments at C2/3, below the level of odontoid peg, and 2cm and 2.5cm below the pons. Brain volume was also measured. RESULTS: Cord area measurements were most reliable in a 5mm segment 2.5cm below the pons (inter-rater coefficient of variation 1.5%, intraclass correlation coefficient 0.99). Cord area at this level correlated more with that at C2/3 area than with brain volume (r=0.811 with C2/3, r=0.502 with brain volume). CONCLUSION: Whereas the standard C2/3 level is often not within the field of view on brain images, the level 2.5cm below the pons usually is, and measurement at this level may be a good way to investigate upper cervical cord atrophy when only brain images are available.
BACKGROUND: In multiple sclerosis (MS), recent work suggests that cervical cord atrophy is more consistently correlated with physical disability than brain white matter lesion load and atrophy. Although spinal cord imaging has not been routinely obtained in many clinical trial and research studies, brain volumetric imaging usually has and includes the upper cervical cord. OBJECTIVES: Using volumetric T1-weighted brain images, we investigated cross-sectional area measures in the uppermost cervical cord and compared them with areas at the standard C2/3 level. METHODS: Using T1-weighted brain scans from 13 controls and 37 people with MS, and an active surface technique, cross-sectional area was measured over 5mm and 1mm cord segments at C2/3, below the level of odontoid peg, and 2cm and 2.5cm below the pons. Brain volume was also measured. RESULTS: Cord area measurements were most reliable in a 5mm segment 2.5cm below the pons (inter-rater coefficient of variation 1.5%, intraclass correlation coefficient 0.99). Cord area at this level correlated more with that at C2/3 area than with brain volume (r=0.811 with C2/3, r=0.502 with brain volume). CONCLUSION: Whereas the standard C2/3 level is often not within the field of view on brain images, the level 2.5cm below the pons usually is, and measurement at this level may be a good way to investigate upper cervical cord atrophy when only brain images are available.
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Rohit Bakshi; Antje Bischof; Peter A Calabresi; Eduardo Caverzasi; R Todd Constable; Esha Datta; Gina Kirkish; Govind Nair; Jiwon Oh; Daniel Pelletier; Dzung L Pham; Daniel S Reich; William Rooney; Snehashis Roy; Daniel Schwartz; Russell T Shinohara; Nancy L Sicotte; William A Stern; Ian Tagge; Shahamat Tauhid; Subhash Tummala; Roland G Henry Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Matteo Pardini; Özgür Yaldizli; Varun Sethi; Nils Muhlert; Zheng Liu; Rebecca S Samson; Daniel R Altmann; Maria A Ron; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; David H Miller; Declan T Chard Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kamyar Taheri; Irene M Vavasour; Shawna Abel; Lisa Eunyoung Lee; Poljanka Johnson; Stephen Ristow; Roger Tam; Cornelia Laule; Nathalie Chantal Ackermans; Alice Schabas; Helen Cross; Jillian Katrina Chan; Ana-Luiza Sayao; Virender Bhan; Virginia Devonshire; Robert Carruthers; David Kb Li; Anthony L Traboulsee; Shannon H Kolind; Adam Vladimir Dvorak Journal: Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin Date: 2022-01-07
Authors: Roberta Maria Lorenzi; Fulvia Palesi; Gloria Castellazzi; Paolo Vitali; Nicoletta Anzalone; Sara Bernini; Matteo Cotta Ramusino; Elena Sinforiani; Giuseppe Micieli; Alfredo Costa; Egidio D'Angelo; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott Journal: Front Cell Neurosci Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 5.505
Authors: Antje Bischof; Nico Papinutto; Anisha Keshavan; Anand Rajesh; Gina Kirkish; Xinheng Zhang; Jacob M Mallott; Carlo Asteggiano; Simone Sacco; Tristan J Gundel; Chao Zhao; William A Stern; Eduardo Caverzasi; Yifan Zhou; Refujia Gomez; Nicholas R Ragan; Adam Santaniello; Alyssa H Zhu; Jeremy Juwono; Carolyn J Bevan; Riley M Bove; Elizabeth Crabtree; Jeffrey M Gelfand; Douglas S Goodin; Jennifer S Graves; Ari J Green; Jorge R Oksenberg; Emmanuelle Waubant; Michael R Wilson; Scott S Zamvil; Bruce A C Cree; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 11.274