| Literature DB >> 27741303 |
Marios C Yiannakas1, Francesco Grussu1, Polymnia Louka1, Ferran Prados1,2,3, Rebecca S Samson1, Marco Battiston1, Daniel R Altmann1,4, Sebastien Ourselin2,3, David H Miller1,3, Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott1,5,6.
Abstract
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) has recently started to be adopted into clinical investigations of spinal cord (SC) diseases. However, DTI applications to the lower SC are limited due to a number of technical challenges, related mainly to the even smaller size of the SC structure at this level, its position relative to the receiver coil elements and the effects of motion during data acquisition. Developing methods to overcome these problems would offer new means to gain further insights into microstructural changes of neurological conditions involving the lower SC, and in turn could help explain symptoms such as bladder and sexual dysfunction. In this work, the feasibility of obtaining grey and white matter (GM/WM) DTI indices such as axial/radial/mean diffusivity (AD/RD/MD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) within the lumbosacral enlargement (LSE) was investigated using a reduced field-of-view (rFOV) single-shot echo-planar imaging (ss-EPI) acquisition in 14 healthy participants using a clinical 3T MR system. The scan-rescan reproducibility of the measurements was assessed by calculating the percentage coefficient of variation (%COV). Mean FA was higher in WM compared to GM (0.58 and 0.4 in WM and GM respectively), AD and MD were higher in WM compared to GM (1.66 μm2ms-1 and 0.94 μm2ms-1 in WM and 1.2 μm2ms-1 and 0.82 μm2ms-1 in GM for AD and MD respectively) and RD was lower in WM compared to GM (0.58 μm2ms-1 and 0.63 μm2ms-1 respectively). The scan-rescan %COV was lower than 10% in all cases with the highest values observed for FA and the lowest for MD. This pilot study demonstrates that it is possible to obtain reliable tissue-specific estimation of DTI indices within the LSE using a rFOV ss-EPI acquisition. The DTI acquisition and analysis protocol presented here is clinically feasible and may be used in future investigations of neurological conditions implicating the lower SC.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27741303 PMCID: PMC5065166 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1High-resolution images acquired through the T11-L1 level with the 3D fast field-echo (3D-FFE) sequence and the corresponding maps of fractional anisotropy (FA), axial diffusivity (AD), radial diffusivity (RD) and mean diffusivity (MD).
The rightmost column corresponds to the T11 level, with contiguous columns moving inferiorly towards L1 (leftmost).
DTI indices obtained within the lumbosacral enlargement (LSE); mean (SD) values in grey matter (GM), white matter (WM) and the whole cord in 14 healthy volunteers.
| DTI indices | GM | WM | Whole cord | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA | 0.40 (0.06) | 0.58 (0.07) | 0.49 (0.05) | p<0.001 |
| AD [μm2 ms-1] | 1.20 (0.87) | 1.66 (0.13) | 1.43 (0.83) | p<0.001 |
| RD [μm2 ms-1] | 0.63 (0.53) | 0.58 (0.22) | 0.60 (0.58) | p = 0.007 |
| MD [μm2 ms-1] | 0.82 (0.50) | 0.94 (0.54) | 0.88 (0.49) | p<0.001 |
* p-values correspond to differences between GM and WM and were assessed using paired t-tests.
Fig 2Box plots displaying the distribution within each tissue-type of fractional anisotropy (FA), axial diffusivity (AD), radial diffusivity (RD) and mean diffusivity (MD) values in all study participants.
The percentage coefficient of variation (%COV) of the DTI indices obtained with the original protocol, with diffusion-weighting applied in 60 directions, is reported separately for grey matter (GM), white matter (WM) and whole cord.
| %COV | GM | WM | Whole cord |
|---|---|---|---|
| FA | 9.1 | 6.0 | 6.7 |
| AD | 7.1 | 5.4 | 6.3 |
| RD | 4.3 | 8.3 | 6.4 |
| MD | 4.4 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Fig 3The effect of fitting the DTI model using a different number of diffusion directions on the quality of the DTI parameter maps is demonstrated here in a single study participant.
Fig 4Box plots displaying the distribution of contrast (C) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values between grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) for all DTI indices and in all subjects, as a function of the diffusion encoding scheme.
Fig 5The effect of fitting the DTI model using a different number of diffusion directions on the percentage coefficient of variation (%COV) of the DTI indices, here plotted separately for grey matter (GM), white matter (WM) and the whole cord.
Results of the linear mixed models examining variation in means of the DTI indices within each tissue-type between different diffusion encoding directions; significant and non-significant values are shown along with the percentage size of the largest difference for each measurement.
| ROI | DTI Indices | Number of diffusion directions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10–20 | 10–30 | 10–60 | 20–30 | 40–60 | 50–60 | ||
| GM | AD | P<0.0001 (4.8%) | P<0.0001 (7.2%) | P<0.0001 (8.8%) | P = 0.0565 (2.5%) | P = 0.0056 (1.2%) | P = 0.0873 (0.4%) |
| RD | P<0.0001 (10%) | P<0.0001 (12.2%) | P<0.0001 (14.5%) | P = 0.0565 (2.5%) | P = 0.0001 (1.9%) | P = 0.4236 (0.3%) | |
| MD | P = 0.0055 (2%) | P = 0.0205 (2%) | P = 0.006 (1.9%) | P = 0.33 (0.3%) | P = 0.2626 (0.4%) | P = 0.8342 (0.1%) | |
| FA | P<0.0001 (15.1%) | P<0.0001 (20.5%) | P<0.0001 (25.7%) | P = 0.0008 (6.4%) | P<0.0001 (4.5%) | P = 0.0017 (1.4%) | |
| WM | AD | P = 0.0004 (3.6%) | P = 0.0019 (4.5%) | P<0.0001 (5.6%) | P = 0.4730 (0.9%) | P = 0.0242 (0.8%) | P = 0.8059 (0.1%) |
| RD | P<0.0001 (7.4%) | P<0.0001 (8.9%) | P<0.0001 (10.8%) | P = 0.4131 (1.3%) | P = 0.0219 (1.2%) | P = 0.7854 (0.1%) | |
| MD | P = 0.5092 (0.5%) | P = 0.7824 (5.1%) | P = 0.951 (0.6%) | P = 0.9965 (0.02%) | P = 0.947 (<0.1%) | P = 0.7128 (0.1%) | |
| FA | P<0.0001 (6.5%) | P<0.0001 (8.5%) | P<0.0001 (10.5%) | P = 0.1985 (2.2%) | P = 0.0014 (1.5%) | P = 0.6696 (0.1%) | |
| Cord | AD | P<0.0001 (4.1%) | P<0.0001 (5.7%) | P<0.0001 (7%) | P = 0.1525 (1.7%) | P = 0.0042 (0.9%) | P = 0.2843 (0.2%) |
| RD | P<0.0001 (8.7%) | P<0.0001 (10.6%) | P<0.0001 (7%) | P = 0.1857 (1.8%) | P = 0.0018 (1.4%) | P = 0.6371 (0.1%) | |
| MD | P = 0.0884 (1.1%) | P = 0.2510 (1.1%) | P = 0.293 (1.1%) | P = 0.8140 (1.1%) | P = 0.6841 (0.2%) | P = 0.772 (<0.1%) | |
| FA | P<0.0001 (10.1%) | P<0.0001 (13.9%) | P<0.0001 (17.1%) | P = 0.0133 (4.2%) | P<0.0001 (2.6%) | P = 0.0304 (0.6%) | |
Abbreviations:- AD = axial diffusivity; RD = radial diffusivity; MD = mean diffusivity; FA = fractional anisotropy; GM = grey matter; WM = white matter.