C Chien1,2, V Juenger1,2,3, M Scheel3, A U Brandt1,2,4, F Paul1,2,5. 1. From the Experimental and Clinical Research Center (C.C., V.J., A.U.B., F.P.), Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine & Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 2. NeuroCure Clinical Research Center (C.C., V.J., M.S., A.U.B., F.P.). 3. Departments of Neuroradiology (V.J., M.S.). 4. Department of Neurology (A.U.B.), University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California. 5. Neurology (F.P.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal cord atrophy is commonly measured from cerebral MRIs, including the upper cervical cord. However, rescan intraparticipant measures have not been investigated in healthy cohorts. This study investigated technical and rescan variability in the mean upper cervical cord area calculated from T1-weighted cerebral MRIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 8 healthy participants were scanned and rescanned with non-distortion- and distortion-corrected MPRAGE sequences (11-50 sessions in 6-8 months), and 50 participants were scanned once with distortion-corrected MPRAGE sequences in the Day2day daily variability study. From another real-world observational cohort, we collected non-distortion-corrected MPRAGE scans from 27 healthy participants (annually for 2-4 years) and cross-sectionally from 77 participants. Statistical analyses included coefficient of variation, smallest real difference, intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman limits of agreement, and paired t tests. RESULTS: Distortion- versus non-distortion-corrected MPRAGE-derived mean upper cervical cord areas were similar; however, a paired t test showed incomparability (t = 11.0, P = <.001). Higher variability was found in the mean upper cervical cord areas calculated from an automatic segmentation method. Interrater analysis yielded incomparable measures in the same participant scans (t = 4.5, P = <.001). Non-distortion-corrected mean upper cervical cord area measures were shown to be robust in real-world data (t = -1.04, P = .31). The main sources of variability were found to be artifacts from movement, head/neck positioning, and/or metal implants. CONCLUSIONS: Technical variability in cord measures decreased using non-distortion-corrected MRIs, a semiautomatic segmentation approach, and 1 rater. Rescan variability was within ±4.4% for group mean upper cervical cord area when MR imaging quality criteria were met.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Spinal cord atrophy is commonly measured from cerebral MRIs, including the upper cervical cord. However, rescan intraparticipant measures have not been investigated in healthy cohorts. This study investigated technical and rescan variability in the mean upper cervical cord area calculated from T1-weighted cerebral MRIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 8 healthy participants were scanned and rescanned with non-distortion- and distortion-corrected MPRAGE sequences (11-50 sessions in 6-8 months), and 50 participants were scanned once with distortion-corrected MPRAGE sequences in the Day2day daily variability study. From another real-world observational cohort, we collected non-distortion-corrected MPRAGE scans from 27 healthy participants (annually for 2-4 years) and cross-sectionally from 77 participants. Statistical analyses included coefficient of variation, smallest real difference, intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman limits of agreement, and paired t tests. RESULTS: Distortion- versus non-distortion-corrected MPRAGE-derived mean upper cervical cord areas were similar; however, a paired t test showed incomparability (t = 11.0, P = <.001). Higher variability was found in the mean upper cervical cord areas calculated from an automatic segmentation method. Interrater analysis yielded incomparable measures in the same participant scans (t = 4.5, P = <.001). Non-distortion-corrected mean upper cervical cord area measures were shown to be robust in real-world data (t = -1.04, P = .31). The main sources of variability were found to be artifacts from movement, head/neck positioning, and/or metal implants. CONCLUSIONS: Technical variability in cord measures decreased using non-distortion-corrected MRIs, a semiautomatic segmentation approach, and 1 rater. Rescan variability was within ±4.4% for group mean upper cervical cord area when MR imaging quality criteria were met.
Authors: Aaron Trefler; Neda Sadeghi; Adam G Thomas; Carlo Pierpaoli; Chris I Baker; Cibu Thomas Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: W J Brownlee; D R Altmann; P Alves Da Mota; J K Swanton; K A Miszkiel; Cam Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; O Ciccarelli; D H Miller Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-08-06 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Paola Valsasina; Mohammed Aboulwafa; Paolo Preziosa; Roberta Messina; Andrea Falini; Giancarlo Comi; Massimo Filippi; Maria A Rocca Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Y Liu; C Lukas; M D Steenwijk; M Daams; A Versteeg; Y Duan; K Li; F Weiler; H K Hahn; M P Wattjes; F Barkhof; H Vrenken Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Daniel Lammertse; David Dungan; James Dreisbach; Scott Falci; Adam Flanders; Ralph Marino; Eric Schwartz Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Maria A Rocca; Olga Ciccarelli; Nicola De Stefano; Nikos Evangelou; Ludwig Kappos; Alex Rovira; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Mar Tintorè; Jette L Frederiksen; Claudio Gasperini; Jacqueline Palace; Daniel S Reich; Brenda Banwell; Xavier Montalban; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: M M Weeda; S M Middelkoop; M D Steenwijk; M Daams; H Amiri; I Brouwer; J Killestein; B M J Uitdehaag; I Dekker; C Lukas; B Bellenberg; F Barkhof; P J W Pouwels; H Vrenken Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Marios C Yiannakas; Ahmed M Mustafa; Benjamin De Leener; Hugh Kearney; Carmen Tur; Daniel R Altmann; Floriana De Angelis; Domenico Plantone; Olga Ciccarelli; David H Miller; Julien Cohen-Adad; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Hanna Marie Röhling; Patrik Althoff; Radina Arsenova; Daniel Drebinger; Norman Gigengack; Anna Chorschew; Daniel Kroneberg; Maria Rönnefarth; Tobias Ellermeyer; Sina Cathérine Rosenkranz; Christoph Heesen; Behnoush Behnia; Shigeki Hirano; Satoshi Kuwabara; Friedemann Paul; Alexander Ulrich Brandt; Tanja Schmitz-Hübsch Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2022-04-01