| Literature DB >> 30581892 |
Monika Nukala1, Jini Abraham1, Ganesh Khandige1, Bharath K Shetty1, Arindam Pol Arjun Rao1.
Abstract
AIM ANDEntities:
Keywords: ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; DTI, diffusion tensor imaging; Diffusion tensor imaging; FA, fractional anisotropy; ROC, receiver operating characteristics; T2WI, T2 weighted imaging
Year: 2018 PMID: 30581892 PMCID: PMC6293016 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2018.08.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Radiol Open ISSN: 2352-0477
Fig. 157 year old patient presented with symptoms correlating with EMS grade 3. a)T2 weighted images show increased signal intensity at C4–C6 level,This area shows b)reduced FA and ADC values and c)Tensor images shows loss of blue colour of the normal cord.
Fig. 245-year-old male patient, presented with history of chronic neck pain belonging EMS grade 2. a) T2 weighted image shows disc protrusion indenting on spinal cord with altered signal in cord from C3–C5 spinal levels. B) Tensor maps don’t show obvious change. There is a significant reduction of FA in C3–C4 and C4–C5 levels.
Fig. 370 year old male presented with chronic neck pain with EMS grade of 2. a) T2WI shows no obvious changes, b) DTI shows a significant increase in ADC value (1.48) at C6–C7 level.
Fig. 454 years old female patient presented with neck pain and EMS grade of 3. a) T2 weighted images showed severe canal stenosis and altered signal intensity within the cord. b)DTI metrics shows a decrease in FA and increase in ADC from C3–C5 level.
Fig. 545 year old female patient presented with neck pain and EMS grade of 1. a) Showed no obvious altered signal intensity in spinal cord on T2 weighted image. However showed cervical spondylotic changes and disc bulde indenting on theca. b) DTI showed increase in ADC value at C6–C7 level, representing myelopathic change not apprent on conventional T2 weighted images.
Distribution of European myelopathy score in patients studied.
| Frequency | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 | 23 | 46.0 |
| Grade 2 | 11 | 22.0 |
| Grade 3 | 16 | 32.0 |
| Total | 50 | 100.0 |
Showing number of patients with FA representing positive or negative test compared to EMS (grade).
| EMS (Grade) | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | |||
| FA | Positive | 9 | 8 | 12 | 29 |
| 31.0% | 27.6% | 41.4% | 100% | ||
| 39.1% | 72.7% | 75.0% | 58.0% | ||
| Negative | 14 | 3 | 4 | 21 | |
| 66.7% | 14.3% | 19.0% | 100% | ||
| 60.9% | 27.3% | 25.0% | 42.0% | ||
| Total | 23 | 11 | 16 | 50 | |
| 46.0% | 22.0% | 32.0% | 100.0% | ||
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
X2 = 6.239p = 0.044, sig (Significant).
Showing number of patients with ADC representing positive or negative test compared to EMS (grade).
| EMS (Grade) | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | |||
| ADC | Positive | 7 | 6 | 13 | 26 |
| 26.9% | 23.1% | 50.0% | 100% | ||
| 30.4% | 54.5% | 81.3% | 52.0% | ||
| Negative | 16 | 5 | 3 | 24 | |
| 66.7% | 20.8% | 12.5% | 100% | ||
| 69.6% | 45.5% | 18.8% | 48.0% | ||
| Total | 23 | 11 | 16 | 50 | |
| 46.0% | 22.0% | 32.0% | 100.0% | ||
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
X2= 9.798p = 0.007, HS (highly significant).
Showing number of patients with T2 representing positive and negative test compared to EMS (grade).
| EMS (Grade) | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | |||
| T2 | Positive | 0 | 7 | 14 | 21 |
| 0% | 33.3% | 66.7% | 100% | ||
| 0% | 63.6% | 87.5% | 42.0% | ||
| Negative | 23 | 4 | 2 | 29 | |
| 79.3% | 13.8% | 6.9% | 100% | ||
| 100% | 36.4% | 12.5% | 58.0% | ||
| Total | 23 | 11 | 16 | 50 | |
| 46.0% | 22.0% | 32.0% | 100.0% | ||
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
X2= 32.367p = 0.000, HS (highly significant).
Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value in FA, ADC and T2 weighted image.
| FA | ADC | T2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SENSITIVITY | 78.8 | 71.4 | 50.4 |
| SPECIFICITY | 79.7 | 62.1 | 73.6 |
| PPV | 76.7 | 57.7 | 52.5 |
| NPV | 92.3 | 75.4 | 38.6 |
Showing Area Under the Curve that is the most significant from C4-C7 levels with p = 0.000.
| Test Result Variable(s) | Area | Std. Error | p | Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| FA (C1–C2) | 0.522 | 0.083 | 0.791 | 0.360 | 0.684 |
| FA(C2–C3) | 0.605 | 0.083 | 0.208 | 0.442 | 0.768 |
| FA(C3–C4) | 0.734 | 0.070 | 0.005 | 0.596 | 0.872 |
| FA(C4–C5) | 0.792 | 0.063 | 0.000 | 0.669 | 0.916 |
| FA(C5–C6) | 0.859 | 0.053 | 0.000 | 0.754 | 0.963 |
| FA(C6–C7) | 0.792 | 0.063 | 0.000 | 0.668 | 0.916 |
Showing the cut off values of FA at each spinal cord level.
| LEVEL | CUT-OFF | DEVIATION |
|---|---|---|
| C1–C2 | 0.6850 | ±0.01 |
| C2–C3 | 0.6550 | ±0.05 |
| C3–C4 | 0.6300 | ±0.03 |
| C4–C5 | 0.6150 | ±0.01 |
| C5–C6 | 0.5750 | ±0.05 |
| C6–C7 | 0.5650 | ±0.03 |
Showing Area Under the Curve that is the most significant from C3–C6 levels.
| Test Result Variable(s) | Area | Std. Error | p | Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| ADC(C1–C2) | 0.603 | 0.084 | 0.210 | 0.439 | 0.768 |
| ADC(C2–C3) | 0.692 | 0.077 | 0.020 | 0.541 | 0.843 |
| ADC(C3–C4) | 0.915 | 0.040 | 0.000 | 0.837 | 0.993 |
| ADC(C4–C5) | 0.841 | 0.055 | 0.000 | 0.734 | 0.949 |
| ADC(C5–C6) | 0.811 | 0.066 | 0.000 | 0.682 | 0.940 |
| ADC(C6–C7) | 0.768 | 0.072 | 0.001 | 0.627 | 0.908 |
Showing the cut off values of ADC at each spinal cord level.
| LEVEL | CUT-OFF | DEVIATION |
|---|---|---|
| C1–C2 | 0.9200 | ±0.11 |
| C2–C3 | 1.0350 | ±0.12 |
| C3–C4 | 1.0100 | ±0.07 |
| C4–C5 | 0.9800 | ±0.03 |
| C5–C6 | 1.0450 | ±0.11 |
| C6–C7 | 0.9600 | ±0.05 |