R Kotikalapudi1,2,3, P Martin2, J Marquetand2, T Lindig4, B Bender4, N K Focke2,3. 1. From the Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (R.K., T.L., B.B.) raviteja.kotikalapudi@gmail.com. 2. Neurology and Epileptology (R.K., P.M., J.M., N.K.F.), Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology (R.K., N.K.F.), University Hospital Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 4. From the Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (R.K., T.L., B.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Voxel-based morphometry is widely used for detecting gray matter abnormalities in epilepsy. However, its performance with changing parameters, smoothing and statistical threshold, is debatable. More important, the potential yield of combining multiple MR imaging contrasts (multispectral voxel-based morphometry) is still unclear. Our aim was to objectify smoothing and statistical cutoffs and systematically compare the performance of multispectral voxel-based morphometry with existing T1 voxel-based morphometry in patients with focal epilepsy and previously negative MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D T1-, T2-, and T2-weighted FLAIR scans were acquired for 62 healthy volunteers and 13 patients with MR imaging negative for focal epilepsy on a Magnetom Skyra 3T scanner with an isotropic resolution of 0.9 mm3. We systematically optimized the main voxel-based morphometry parameters, smoothing level and statistical cutoff, with T1 voxel-based morphometry as a reference. As a next step, the performance of multispectral voxel-based morphometry models, T1+T2, T1+FLAIR, and T1+T2+FLAIR, was compared with that of T1 voxel-based morphometry using gray matter concentration and gray matter volume analysis. RESULTS: We found the best performance of T1 at 12 mm and a T-threshold (statistical cutoff) of 3.7 for gray matter concentration analysis. When we incorporated these parameters, after expert visual interpretation of concordant and discordant findings, we identified T1+FLAIR as the best model with a concordant rate of 46.2% and a concordant rate/discordant rate of 1.20 compared with T1 with 30.8% and 0.67, respectively. Visual interpretation of voxel-based morphometry findings decreased concordant rates from 38.5%-46.2% to 15.4%-46.2% and discordant rates from 53.8%-84.6% to 30.8%-46.2% and increased specificity across models from 33.9%-40.3% to 46.8%-54.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Multispectral voxel-based morphometry, especially T1+FLAIR, can yield superior results over single-channel T1 in focal epilepsy patients with a negative conventional MR imaging.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Voxel-based morphometry is widely used for detecting gray matter abnormalities in epilepsy. However, its performance with changing parameters, smoothing and statistical threshold, is debatable. More important, the potential yield of combining multiple MR imaging contrasts (multispectral voxel-based morphometry) is still unclear. Our aim was to objectify smoothing and statistical cutoffs and systematically compare the performance of multispectral voxel-based morphometry with existing T1 voxel-based morphometry in patients with focal epilepsy and previously negative MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D T1-, T2-, and T2-weighted FLAIR scans were acquired for 62 healthy volunteers and 13 patients with MR imaging negative for focal epilepsy on a Magnetom Skyra 3T scanner with an isotropic resolution of 0.9 mm3. We systematically optimized the main voxel-based morphometry parameters, smoothing level and statistical cutoff, with T1 voxel-based morphometry as a reference. As a next step, the performance of multispectral voxel-based morphometry models, T1+T2, T1+FLAIR, and T1+T2+FLAIR, was compared with that of T1 voxel-based morphometry using gray matter concentration and gray matter volume analysis. RESULTS: We found the best performance of T1 at 12 mm and a T-threshold (statistical cutoff) of 3.7 for gray matter concentration analysis. When we incorporated these parameters, after expert visual interpretation of concordant and discordant findings, we identified T1+FLAIR as the best model with a concordant rate of 46.2% and a concordant rate/discordant rate of 1.20 compared with T1 with 30.8% and 0.67, respectively. Visual interpretation of voxel-based morphometry findings decreased concordant rates from 38.5%-46.2% to 15.4%-46.2% and discordant rates from 53.8%-84.6% to 30.8%-46.2% and increased specificity across models from 33.9%-40.3% to 46.8%-54.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Multispectral voxel-based morphometry, especially T1+FLAIR, can yield superior results over single-channel T1 in focal epilepsypatients with a negative conventional MR imaging.
Authors: Leonardo Bonilha; Maria Augusta Montenegro; Chris Rorden; Gabriela Castellano; Marilisa Mantovani Guerreiro; Fernando Cendes; Li Min Li Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: José F Téllez-Zenteno; Lizbeth Hernández Ronquillo; Farzad Moien-Afshari; Samuel Wiebe Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Ingmar Blümcke; Maria Thom; Eleonora Aronica; Dawna D Armstrong; Harry V Vinters; Andre Palmini; Thomas S Jacques; Giuliano Avanzini; A James Barkovich; Giorgio Battaglia; Albert Becker; Carlos Cepeda; Fernando Cendes; Nadia Colombo; Peter Crino; J Helen Cross; Olivier Delalande; François Dubeau; John Duncan; Renzo Guerrini; Philippe Kahane; Gary Mathern; Imad Najm; Ciğdem Ozkara; Charles Raybaud; Alfonso Represa; Steven N Roper; Noriko Salamon; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage; Laura Tassi; Annamaria Vezzani; Roberto Spreafico Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Niels K Focke; Silvia B Bonelli; Mahinda Yogarajah; Catherine Scott; Mark R Symms; John S Duncan Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Pascal Martin; Gavin P Winston; Philippa Bartlett; Jane de Tisi; John S Duncan; Niels K Focke Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Radek Mareček; Pavel Říha; Michaela Bartoňová; Martin Kojan; Martin Lamoš; Martin Gajdoš; Lubomír Vojtíšek; Michal Mikl; Marek Bartoň; Irena Doležalová; Martin Pail; Ondřej Strýček; Marta Pažourková; Milan Brázdil; Ivan Rektor Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 5.038