Shuang Yan1, Tianyi Qian2, Bénédicte Maréchal3,4,5, Tobias Kober3,4,5, Xianchang Zhang2, Jinxia Zhu2, Jing Lei1, Mingli Li1, Zhengyu Jin1. 1. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China. 2. Department of MR Collaboration, Siemens Healthcare Ltd., Beijing 100102, China. 3. Department of Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthcare, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 5. LTS5, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precise and reliable brain morphometry analysis is critical for clinical and research purposes. The magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE), multi-echo MPRAGE (MEMPRAGE) and magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echo (MP2RAGE) sequences have all been used to acquire brain structural images, but it is unclear which of these sequences is the most suitable for brain morphometry and whether the number of coil channels (20 or 32) affects scan precision. This study aimed to assess the impact of T1-weighted image acquisition variables (sequence and head coil) on the repeatability of resultant automated volumetric measurements. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers underwent back-to-back scanning protocols with three sequences and two different coils (i.e., six scanning conditions in total) presented in a randomized order in a single session. MorphoBox prototype and FreeSurfer were used for brain segmentation. Brain structures were divided into cortical and subcortical regions for more precise analysis. The acquired volume and thickness values were used to calculate test-retest variability (TRV) values. TRV values from the six different combinations were compared for total brain structures, total cortical structures, total subcortical structures, and every single structure. RESULTS: The median TRV value for all brain regions was 1.23% with MorphoBox and 3.14% with FreeSurfer. When using FreeSurfer results to compare the six combinations, for total brain structures volume and total cortical structures volume and thickness, the MEMPRAGE-32 channel combination showed significantly lower TRV values than the others (P<0.01). Similar results were observed with MorphoBox. For total subcortical structures, the MP2RAGE-32 channel combination showed the lowest TRV values with both MorphoBox (lower about 0.01% to 0.17%) and FreeSurfer analyses (lower about 0.02% to 0.37%). CONCLUSIONS: TRV values were generally low, indicating generally high reliability for every region. The MEMPRAGE sequence was the most reliable of the three sequences for total brain structures and cortical structures. However, MP2RAGE was the most reliable for subcortical structures. The 32-channel coil showed better repeatability results than the 20-channel coil. 2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Precise and reliable brain morphometry analysis is critical for clinical and research purposes. The magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE), multi-echo MPRAGE (MEMPRAGE) and magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echo (MP2RAGE) sequences have all been used to acquire brain structural images, but it is unclear which of these sequences is the most suitable for brain morphometry and whether the number of coil channels (20 or 32) affects scan precision. This study aimed to assess the impact of T1-weighted image acquisition variables (sequence and head coil) on the repeatability of resultant automated volumetric measurements. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers underwent back-to-back scanning protocols with three sequences and two different coils (i.e., six scanning conditions in total) presented in a randomized order in a single session. MorphoBox prototype and FreeSurfer were used for brain segmentation. Brain structures were divided into cortical and subcortical regions for more precise analysis. The acquired volume and thickness values were used to calculate test-retest variability (TRV) values. TRV values from the six different combinations were compared for total brain structures, total cortical structures, total subcortical structures, and every single structure. RESULTS: The median TRV value for all brain regions was 1.23% with MorphoBox and 3.14% with FreeSurfer. When using FreeSurfer results to compare the six combinations, for total brain structures volume and total cortical structures volume and thickness, the MEMPRAGE-32 channel combination showed significantly lower TRV values than the others (P<0.01). Similar results were observed with MorphoBox. For total subcortical structures, the MP2RAGE-32 channel combination showed the lowest TRV values with both MorphoBox (lower about 0.01% to 0.17%) and FreeSurfer analyses (lower about 0.02% to 0.37%). CONCLUSIONS: TRV values were generally low, indicating generally high reliability for every region. The MEMPRAGE sequence was the most reliable of the three sequences for total brain structures and cortical structures. However, MP2RAGE was the most reliable for subcortical structures. The 32-channel coil showed better repeatability results than the 20-channel coil. 2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Authors: Xiao Han; Jorge Jovicich; David Salat; Andre van der Kouwe; Brian Quinn; Silvester Czanner; Evelina Busa; Jenni Pacheco; Marilyn Albert; Ronald Killiany; Paul Maguire; Diana Rosas; Nikos Makris; Anders Dale; Bradford Dickerson; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Karmen K Yoder; Daniel S Albrecht; David A Kareken; Lauren M Federici; Kevin M Perry; Elizabeth A Patton; Qi-Huang Zheng; Bruce H Mock; Sean O'Connor; Christine M Herring Journal: Synapse Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: Graham C Wiggins; Jonathan R Polimeni; Andreas Potthast; Melanie Schmitt; Vijay Alagappan; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: José P Marques; Tobias Kober; Gunnar Krueger; Wietske van der Zwaag; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Rolf Gruetter Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: J S Wonderlick; D A Ziegler; P Hosseini-Varnamkhasti; J J Locascio; A Bakkour; A van der Kouwe; C Triantafyllou; S Corkin; B C Dickerson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kyoko Fujimoto; Jonathan R Polimeni; André J W van der Kouwe; Martin Reuter; Tobias Kober; Thomas Benner; Bruce Fischl; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Graham N Knussmann; Jeffrey S Anderson; Molly B D Prigge; Douglas C Dean; Nicholas Lange; Erin D Bigler; Andrew L Alexander; Janet E Lainhart; Brandon A Zielinski; Jace B King Journal: Neuroimage Rep Date: 2022-02-24