| Literature DB >> 32046340 |
Laetitia Saccenti1,2, Akifumi Hagiwara1, Christina Andica1, Kazumasa Yokoyama3, Shohei Fujita1,4, Shimpei Kato1,4, Tomoko Maekawa1,4, Koji Kamagata1, Alice Le Berre1,2, Masaaki Hori1,5, Akihiko Wada1, Ukihide Tateishi6, Nobutaka Hattori3, Shigeki Aoki1.
Abstract
Evaluation of myelin by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a difficult challenge, but holds promise in demyelinating diseases, such as multiple sclerosis (MS). Although multiple techniques have been developed, no gold standard has been established. This study aims to evaluate the correlation between synthetic MRI myelin volume fraction (SyMRIMVF) and myelin fraction estimated by other techniques, i.e., magnetization transfer saturation (MTsat), T1-weighted images divided by T2-weighted images (T1w/T2w), and radial diffusivity (RD) in patients with MS. We also compared the sensitivities of these techniques for detecting MS-related myelin damage. SyMRIMVF, MTsat, T1w/T2w, and RD were averaged on plaque, periplaque white matter, and normal-appearing white matter (NAWM). Pairwise correlation was calculated using Spearman's correlation analysis. For all segmented regions, strong correlations were found between SyMRIMVF and T1w/T2w (Rho = 0.89), MTsat (Rho = 0.82), or RD (Rho = -0.75). For each technique, the average estimated myelin differed significantly among regions, but the percentage change of NAWM from both periplaque white matter and plaque were highest in SyMRIMVF. SyMRIMVF might be suitable for myelin evaluation in MS patients, with relevant results as compared to other well-studied techniques. Moreover, it presented better sensitivity for the detection of the difference between plaque or periplaque white matter and NAWM.Entities:
Keywords: multiple sclerosis; myelin; synthetic magnetic resonance imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32046340 PMCID: PMC7072333 DOI: 10.3390/cells9020393
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Demographic and clinical details of study participants.
| MS Patients | |
|---|---|
|
| 21 |
|
| 37.9 ± 9.9 |
|
| 2:19 |
|
| 8.7 ± 6.5 |
|
| 1 (0–2) |
Figure 1Synthetic T2-weighted images (A) were used for semi-automated segmentation of plaque (red), periplaque (orange), and contralateral normal-appearing white matter (green) (B). Regions-of-interest were copied and pasted onto SyMRIMVF (C), T1w/T2w (D), MTsat (E), and RD (F) maps.
Figure 2Estimation of myelin with 4 different techniques (SyMRIMVF, MTsat, T1w/T2w, and RD). Each technique can differentiate plaque, periplaque, and NAWM regions. These metrics were the lowest in plaque for SyMRIMVF, MTsat, and T1w/T2w and the highest in plaque for RD. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Percentage changes in the metrics (SyMRIMVF, T1w/T2w, MTsat, and RD) for plaque and periplaque compared to NAWM regions. SyMRIMVF showed the highest contrast between NAWM and both plaque and periplaque regions. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Correlation matrix of Spearman’s rank order correlation analysis.
| MTsat | T1w/T2w | RD | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.82 [0.77–0.87] *** | 0.89 [0.85–0.92] *** | −0.75 [−0.80–(−0.69)] *** |
|
| 0.80 [0.74–0.85] *** | −0.72 [−0.78–(−0.65)] *** | |
|
| −0.66 [−0.73–(−0.57)] *** |
Data are the Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficients ± 95% confidence interval. For the segmented regions overall, strong correlations were found between SyMRIMVF, T1w/T2w, MTsat, and RD, except for RD and T1w/T2w, which were moderately correlated. All correlations were statistically significant. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Scatterplots of SyMRIMVF, MTsat, T1w/T2w, and RD, plotted by subgroup of segmented regions-of-interest: black square = plaque, red triangle = periplaque, green circle = NAWM. Plot concentration ellipses are also drawn, with concentration levels of 0.5.
Correlation among SyMRIMVF, MTsat, T1w/T2w, and RD for plaque, periplaque, and NAWM subgroups.
| MTsat | T1w/T2w | RD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.70 [0.58–0.79] *** | 0.78 [0.67–0.86] *** | −0.38 [−0.53–(−0.19)] *** |
|
| 0.64 [0.47–0.77] *** | −0.48 [−0.65–(−0.29)] *** | ||
|
| −0.58 [−0.71–(−0.41)] *** | |||
|
|
| 0.45 [0.23–0.60] *** | 0.62 [0.49–0.74] *** | 0.41 [0.23–0.56] *** |
|
| 0.41 [0.22–0.59] *** | 0.40 [0.19–0.59] *** | ||
|
| −0.09 [−0.31–0.13] | |||
|
|
| 0.33 [0.13–0.51] ** | 0.50 [0.32–0.67] *** | −0.21 [−0.41–(−0.02)] |
|
| 0.28 [0.11–0.47] * | −0.20 [−0.45–0.02] | ||
|
| 0.11 [−0.10–0.29] |
Data are the Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficients ± 95% confidence interval. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Correlation between clinical scores and SyMRIMVF, MTsat, T1w/T2w, or RD in plaque, periplaque, and NAWM.
| SyMRIMVF | MTsat | T1w/T2w | RD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| −0.10 [−0.57 to 0.39] | −0.29 [−0.71 to 0.22] | −0.0014 [−0.49 to 0.48] | −0.12 [−0.56 to 0.36] |
|
| 0.20 [−0.36 to 0.64] | 0.17 [−0.34 to 0.63] | −0.17 [−0.67 to 0.38] | 0.32 [−0.17 to 0.77] | |
|
|
| 0.13 [−0.33 to 0.51] | 0.12 [−0.38 to 0.57] | 0.24 [−0.26 to 0.66] | −0.31 [−0.68 to 0.11] |
|
| −0.00065 [−0.52 to 0.45] | −0.12 [−0.51 to 0.38] | −0.24 [−0.67 to 0.26] | 0.23 [−0.25 to 0.66] | |
|
|
| 0.45 [0.031 to 0.76] | 0.15 [−0.32 to 0.60] | 0.23 [−0.28 to 0.63] | −0.47 [−0.80 to −0.056] |
|
| −0.63 [−0.81 to −0.32] ** | −0.39 [−0.70 to 0.072] | −0.38 [−0.72 to 0.077] | 0.51 [0.11 to 0.81] * |
Data are the Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficients ± 95% confidence interval. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.