C Tsagkas1,2,3, A Horvath4, A Altermatt2,3,4, S Pezold4, M Weigel2,5,4, T Haas5, M Amann1,2,6,3, L Kappos1,2, T Sprenger1,7, O Bieri5,4, P Cattin4, K Parmar8,2. 1. From the Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic (C.T., M.A., L.K., T.S., K.P.), Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering. 2. Translational Imaging in Neurology Basel (C.T., A.A., M.A., M.W., L.K., K.P.), Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering. 3. Medical Image Analysis Center (C.T., A.A., M.A.), Basel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering (A.H., A.A., S.P., M.W., O.B., P.C.), University of Basel, Allschwil, Switzerland. 5. Division of Radiological Physics (M.W., T.H., O.B.), Department of Radiology. 6. Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (M.A.), Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 7. Department of Neurology (T.S.), DKD HELIOS Klinik, Wiesbaden, Germany. 8. From the Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic (C.T., M.A., L.K., T.S., K.P.), Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering katrin.parmar@usb.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Currently, accurate and reproducible spinal cord GM segmentation remains challenging and a noninvasive broadly accepted reference standard for spinal cord GM measurements is still a matter of ongoing discussion. Our aim was to assess the reproducibility and accuracy of cervical spinal cord GM and WM cross-sectional area measurements using averaged magnetization inversion recovery acquisitions images and a fully-automatic postprocessing segmentation algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cervical spinal cord of 24 healthy subjects (14 women; mean age, 40 ± 11 years) was scanned in a test-retest fashion on a 3T MR imaging system. Twelve axial averaged magnetization inversion recovery acquisitions slices were acquired over a 48-mm cord segment. GM and WM were both manually segmented by 2 experienced readers and compared with an automatic variational segmentation algorithm with a shape prior modified for 3D data with a slice similarity prior. Precision and accuracy of the automatic method were evaluated using coefficients of variation and Dice similarity coefficients. RESULTS: The mean GM area was 17.20 ± 2.28 mm2 and the mean WM area was 72.71 ± 7.55 mm2 using the automatic method. Reproducibility was high for both methods, while being better for the automatic approach (all mean automatic coefficients of variation, ≤4.77%; all differences, P < .001). The accuracy of the automatic method compared with the manual reference standard was excellent (mean Dice similarity coefficients: 0.86 ± 0.04 for GM and 0.90 ± 0.03 for WM). The automatic approach demonstrated similar coefficients of variation between intra- and intersession reproducibility as well as among all acquired spinal cord slices. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel approach including the averaged magnetization inversion recovery acquisitions sequence and a fully-automated postprocessing segmentation algorithm demonstrated an accurate and reproducible spinal cord GM and WM segmentation. This pipeline is promising for both the exploration of longitudinal structural GM changes and application in clinical settings in disorders affecting the spinal cord.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Currently, accurate and reproducible spinal cord GM segmentation remains challenging and a noninvasive broadly accepted reference standard for spinal cord GM measurements is still a matter of ongoing discussion. Our aim was to assess the reproducibility and accuracy of cervical spinal cord GM and WM cross-sectional area measurements using averaged magnetization inversion recovery acquisitions images and a fully-automatic postprocessing segmentation algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cervical spinal cord of 24 healthy subjects (14 women; mean age, 40 ± 11 years) was scanned in a test-retest fashion on a 3T MR imaging system. Twelve axial averaged magnetization inversion recovery acquisitions slices were acquired over a 48-mm cord segment. GM and WM were both manually segmented by 2 experienced readers and compared with an automatic variational segmentation algorithm with a shape prior modified for 3D data with a slice similarity prior. Precision and accuracy of the automatic method were evaluated using coefficients of variation and Dice similarity coefficients. RESULTS: The mean GM area was 17.20 ± 2.28 mm2 and the mean WM area was 72.71 ± 7.55 mm2 using the automatic method. Reproducibility was high for both methods, while being better for the automatic approach (all mean automatic coefficients of variation, ≤4.77%; all differences, P < .001). The accuracy of the automatic method compared with the manual reference standard was excellent (mean Dice similarity coefficients: 0.86 ± 0.04 for GM and 0.90 ± 0.03 for WM). The automatic approach demonstrated similar coefficients of variation between intra- and intersession reproducibility as well as among all acquired spinal cord slices. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel approach including the averaged magnetization inversion recovery acquisitions sequence and a fully-automated postprocessing segmentation algorithm demonstrated an accurate and reproducible spinal cord GM and WM segmentation. This pipeline is promising for both the exploration of longitudinal structural GM changes and application in clinical settings in disorders affecting the spinal cord.
Authors: Esha Datta; Nico Papinutto; Regina Schlaeger; Alyssa Zhu; Julio Carballido-Gamio; Roland G Henry Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: C A Wheeler-Kingshott; P W Stroman; J M Schwab; M Bacon; R Bosma; J Brooks; D W Cadotte; T Carlstedt; O Ciccarelli; J Cohen-Adad; A Curt; N Evangelou; M G Fehlings; M Filippi; B J Kelley; S Kollias; A Mackay; C A Porro; S Smith; S M Strittmatter; P Summers; A J Thompson; I Tracey Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-07-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Regina Schlaeger; Valentina Panara; Eduardo Caverzasi; Sinyeob Ahn; Kevin J Johnson; Alyssa H Zhu; William A Stern; Gerhard Laub; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Regina Schlaeger; Nico Papinutto; Valentina Panara; Carolyn Bevan; Iryna V Lobach; Monica Bucci; Eduardo Caverzasi; Jeffrey M Gelfand; Ari J Green; Kesshi M Jordan; William A Stern; H-Christian von Büdingen; Emmanuelle Waubant; Alyssa H Zhu; Douglas S Goodin; Bruce A C Cree; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: M C Yiannakas; H Kearney; R S Samson; D T Chard; O Ciccarelli; D H Miller; C A M Wheeler-Kingshott Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ferran Prados; M Jorge Cardoso; Marios C Yiannakas; Luke R Hoy; Elisa Tebaldi; Hugh Kearney; Martina D Liechti; David H Miller; Olga Ciccarelli; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Sebastien Ourselin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Eva M Kesenheimer; Maria Janina Wendebourg; Matthias Weigel; Claudia Weidensteiner; Tanja Haas; Laura Richter; Laura Sander; Antal Horvath; Muhamed Barakovic; Philippe Cattin; Cristina Granziera; Oliver Bieri; Regina Schlaeger Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 4.003