T Vanderhasselt1, M Naeyaert2, N Watté2, G-J Allemeersch2, S Raeymaeckers2, J Dudink3,4, J de Mey2, H Raeymaekers2. 1. From the Department of Radiology (T.V., M.N., N.W., G.-J.A., S.R., J.d.M., H.R.), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussels, Brussels, Belgium tim.vanderhasselt@uzbrussel.be. 2. From the Department of Radiology (T.V., M.N., N.W., G.-J.A., S.R., J.d.M., H.R.), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Neonatology (J.D.), Wilhelmina Children's Hospital/Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Rudolf Magnus Brain Center (J.D.), Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neonatal MR imaging brain volume measurements can be used as biomarkers for long-term neurodevelopmental outcome, but quantitative volumetric MR imaging data are not usually available during routine radiologic evaluation. In the current study, the feasibility of automated quantitative brain volumetry and image reconstruction via synthetic MR imaging in very preterm infants was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conventional and synthetic T1WIs and T2WIs from 111 very preterm infants were acquired at term-equivalent age. Overall image quality and artifacts of the conventional and synthetic images were rated on a 4-point scale. Legibility of anatomic structures and lesion conspicuity were assessed on a binary scale. Synthetic MR volumetry was compared with that generated via MANTiS, which is a neonatal tissue segmentation toolbox based on T2WI. RESULTS: Image quality was good or excellent for most conventional and synthetic images. The 2 methods did not differ significantly regarding image quality or diagnostic performance for focal and cystic WM lesions. Dice similarity coefficients had excellent overlap for intracranial volume (97.3%) and brain parenchymal volume (94.3%), and moderate overlap for CSF (75.6%). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a small systematic bias in all cases (1.7%-5.9%) CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic T1WI and T2WI sequences may complement or replace conventional images in neonatal imaging, and robust synthetic volumetric results are accessible from a clinical workstation in less than 1 minute. Via the above-described methods, volume assessments could be routinely used in daily clinical practice.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neonatal MR imaging brain volume measurements can be used as biomarkers for long-term neurodevelopmental outcome, but quantitative volumetric MR imaging data are not usually available during routine radiologic evaluation. In the current study, the feasibility of automated quantitative brain volumetry and image reconstruction via synthetic MR imaging in very preterm infants was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conventional and synthetic T1WIs and T2WIs from 111 very preterm infants were acquired at term-equivalent age. Overall image quality and artifacts of the conventional and synthetic images were rated on a 4-point scale. Legibility of anatomic structures and lesion conspicuity were assessed on a binary scale. Synthetic MR volumetry was compared with that generated via MANTiS, which is a neonatal tissue segmentation toolbox based on T2WI. RESULTS: Image quality was good or excellent for most conventional and synthetic images. The 2 methods did not differ significantly regarding image quality or diagnostic performance for focal and cystic WM lesions. Dice similarity coefficients had excellent overlap for intracranial volume (97.3%) and brain parenchymal volume (94.3%), and moderate overlap for CSF (75.6%). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a small systematic bias in all cases (1.7%-5.9%) CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic T1WI and T2WI sequences may complement or replace conventional images in neonatal imaging, and robust synthetic volumetric results are accessible from a clinical workstation in less than 1 minute. Via the above-described methods, volume assessments could be routinely used in daily clinical practice.
Authors: Ivana Išgum; Manon J N L Benders; Brian Avants; M Jorge Cardoso; Serena J Counsell; Elda Fischi Gomez; Laura Gui; Petra S Hűppi; Karina J Kersbergen; Antonios Makropoulos; Andrew Melbourne; Pim Moeskops; Christian P Mol; Maria Kuklisova-Murgasova; Daniel Rueckert; Julia A Schnabel; Vedran Srhoj-Egekher; Jue Wu; Siying Wang; Linda S de Vries; Max A Viergever Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Lianne J Woodward; Peter J Anderson; Nicola C Austin; Kelly Howard; Terrie E Inder Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T Granberg; M Uppman; F Hashim; C Cananau; L E Nordin; S Shams; J Berglund; Y Forslin; P Aspelin; S Fredrikson; M Kristoffersen-Wiberg Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Richard J Beare; Jian Chen; Claire E Kelly; Dimitrios Alexopoulos; Christopher D Smyser; Cynthia E Rogers; Wai Y Loh; Lillian G Matthews; Jeanie L Y Cheong; Alicia J Spittle; Peter J Anderson; Lex W Doyle; Terrie E Inder; Marc L Seal; Deanne K Thompson Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: V Schmidbauer; G Dovjak; G Geisl; M Weber; M C Diogo; M S Yildirim; K Goeral; K Klebermass-Schrehof; A Berger; D Prayer; G Kasprian Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825