D Pareto1, J Sastre-Garriga2, F X Aymerich3,4, C Auger3, M Tintoré2, X Montalban2, A Rovira3. 1. Unitat de Ressonància Magnètica (Servei de Radiologia, IDI), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Psg. Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. deborah.pareto@idi.gencat.cat. 2. Servei de Neurologia / Neuroimmunologia, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Unitat de Ressonància Magnètica (Servei de Radiologia, IDI), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Psg. Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Departament D'Enginyeria de Sistemes, Automàtica i Informàtica Industrial (ESAII), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Regional brain volume estimation in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is prone to error due to white matter lesions being erroneously segmented as grey matter. The Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (LST) is an automatic tool that estimates a lesion mask based on 3D T2-FLAIR images and then uses this mask to fill the structural MRI image. The goal of this study was (1) to test the LST for estimating white matter lesion volume in a cohort of MS patients using 2D T2-FLAIR images, and (2) to evaluate the performance of the optimized LST on image segmentation and the impact on the calculated grey matter fraction (GMF). METHODS: The study included 110 patients with a clinically isolated syndrome and 42 with a relapsing-remitting MS scanned on a 3.0-T MRI system. In a subset of consecutively selected patients, the lesion mask was semi-manually delineated over T2-FLAIR images. After establishing the optimized LST parameters, the corresponding regional fractions were calculated for the original, filled, and masked images. RESULTS: A high agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.955) was found between the (optimized) LST and the semi-manual lesion volume estimations. The GMF was significantly smaller when lesions were masked (mean difference -0.603, p < 0.001) or when the LST filling technique was used (mean difference -0.598, p < 0.001), compared to the GMF obtained from the original image. CONCLUSION: LST lesion volume calculation seems reliable. GMFs are significantly reduced when a method to correct the contribution of MS lesions is used, and it may have an impact in assessing GMF differences between clinical cohorts.
INTRODUCTION: Regional brain volume estimation in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is prone to error due to white matter lesions being erroneously segmented as grey matter. The Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (LST) is an automatic tool that estimates a lesion mask based on 3D T2-FLAIR images and then uses this mask to fill the structural MRI image. The goal of this study was (1) to test the LST for estimating white matter lesion volume in a cohort of MSpatients using 2D T2-FLAIR images, and (2) to evaluate the performance of the optimized LST on image segmentation and the impact on the calculated grey matter fraction (GMF). METHODS: The study included 110 patients with a clinically isolated syndrome and 42 with a relapsing-remitting MS scanned on a 3.0-T MRI system. In a subset of consecutively selected patients, the lesion mask was semi-manually delineated over T2-FLAIR images. After establishing the optimized LST parameters, the corresponding regional fractions were calculated for the original, filled, and masked images. RESULTS: A high agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.955) was found between the (optimized) LST and the semi-manual lesion volume estimations. The GMF was significantly smaller when lesions were masked (mean difference -0.603, p < 0.001) or when the LST filling technique was used (mean difference -0.598, p < 0.001), compared to the GMF obtained from the original image. CONCLUSION: LST lesion volume calculation seems reliable. GMFs are significantly reduced when a method to correct the contribution of MS lesions is used, and it may have an impact in assessing GMF differences between clinical cohorts.
Authors: Mishkin Derakhshan; Zografos Caramanos; Paul S Giacomini; Sridar Narayanan; Josefina Maranzano; Simon J Francis; Douglas L Arnold; D Louis Collins Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Declan T Chard; Jonathan S Jackson; David H Miller; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nicola De Stefano; Laura Airas; Nikolaos Grigoriadis; Heinrich P Mattle; Jonathan O'Riordan; Celia Oreja-Guevara; Finn Sellebjerg; Bruno Stankoff; Agata Walczak; Heinz Wiendl; Bernd C Kieseier Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Carmen Tur; Marcello Moccia; Frederik Barkhof; Jeremy Chataway; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Alan J Thompson; Olga Ciccarelli Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Milena Sales Pitombeira; Michel Koole; Kenia R Campanholo; Aline M Souza; Fábio L S Duran; Davi J Fontoura Solla; Maria F Mendes; Samira L Apóstolos Pereira; Carolina M Rimkus; Geraldo Filho Busatto; Dagoberto Callegaro; Carlos A Buchpiguel; Daniele de Paula Faria Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yolanda Aladro; Laudino López-Alvarez; Jorge Mario Sánchez-Reyes; Juan Antonio Hernández-Tamames; Helena Melero; Sandra Rubio-Fernández; Israel Thuissard; Marta Cerezo-García Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Houshang Amiri; Alexandra de Sitter; Kerstin Bendfeldt; Marco Battaglini; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Massimiliano Calabrese; Jeroen J G Geurts; Maria A Rocca; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Christian Enzinger; Nicola de Stefano; Massimo Filippi; Álex Rovira; Frederik Barkhof; Hugo Vrenken Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 4.881