H Rasoanandrianina1,2,3, S Demortière1,2,4, A Trabelsi1,2, J P Ranjeva1,2,3, O Girard1,2, G Duhamel1,2, M Guye1,2, J Pelletier1,2,4, B Audoin1,2,4, V Callot5,2,3. 1. From the Center for Magnetic Resonance in Biology and Medicine (H.R., S.D., A.T., J.P.R., O.G., G.D., M.G., J.P., B.A., V.C.), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France. 2. Centre d'Exploration Métabolique par Résonance Magnétique (H.R., S.D., A.T., J.P.R., O.G., G.D., M.G., J.P., B.A., V.C.), Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Marseille, Hôpital Universitaire Timone, Marseille, France. 3. Laboratoire de Biomécanique Appliquée, Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l'Aménagement et des Reseaux, Aix-Marseille Université; iLab-Spine International Associated Laboratory (H.R., J.P.R., V.C.), Marseille-Montreal, France-Canada. 4. Department of Neurology (S.D., J.P., B.A.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Timone, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. 5. From the Center for Magnetic Resonance in Biology and Medicine (H.R., S.D., A.T., J.P.R., O.G., G.D., M.G., J.P., B.A., V.C.), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France virginie.callot@univ-amu.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The inhomogeneous magnetization transfer technique has demonstrated high specificity for myelin, and has shown sensitivity to multiple sclerosis-related impairment in brain tissue. Our aim was to investigate its sensitivity to spinal cord impairment in MS relative to more established MR imaging techniques (volumetry, magnetization transfer, DTI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anatomic images covering the cervical spinal cord from the C1 to C6 levels and DTI, magnetization transfer/inhomogeneous magnetization transfer images at the C2/C5 levels were acquired in 19 patients with MS and 19 paired healthy controls. Anatomic images were segmented in spinal cord GM and WM, both manually and using the AMU40 atlases. MS lesions were manually delineated. MR metrics were analyzed within normal-appearing and lesion regions in anterolateral and posterolateral WM and compared using Wilcoxon rank tests and z scores. Correlations between MR metrics and clinical scores in patients with MS were evaluated using the Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: AMU40-based C1-to-C6 GM/WM automatic segmentations in patients with MS were evaluated relative to manual delineation. Mean Dice coefficients were 0.75/0.89, respectively. All MR metrics (WM/GM cross-sectional areas, normal-appearing and lesion diffusivities, and magnetization transfer/inhomogeneous magnetization transfer ratios) were observed altered in patients compared with controls (P < .05). Additionally, the absolute inhomogeneous magnetization transfer ratio z scores were significantly higher than those of the other MR metrics (P < .0001), suggesting a higher inhomogeneous magnetization transfer sensitivity toward spinal cord impairment in MS. Significant correlations with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (ρ = -0.73/P = .02, ρ = -0.81/P = .004) and the total Medical Research Council scale (ρ = 0.80/P = .009, ρ = -0.74/P = .02) were observed for inhomogeneous magnetization transfer and magnetization transfer ratio z scores, respectively, in normal-appearing WM regions, while weaker and nonsignificant correlations were obtained for DTI metrics. CONCLUSIONS: With inhomogeneous magnetization transfer being highly sensitive to spinal cord damage in MS compared with conventional magnetization transfer and DTI, it could generate great clinical interest for longitudinal follow-up and potential remyelinating clinical trials. In line with other advanced myelin techniques with which it could be compared, it opens perspectives for multicentric investigations.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The inhomogeneous magnetization transfer technique has demonstrated high specificity for myelin, and has shown sensitivity to multiple sclerosis-related impairment in brain tissue. Our aim was to investigate its sensitivity to spinal cord impairment in MS relative to more established MR imaging techniques (volumetry, magnetization transfer, DTI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anatomic images covering the cervical spinal cord from the C1 to C6 levels and DTI, magnetization transfer/inhomogeneous magnetization transfer images at the C2/C5 levels were acquired in 19 patients with MS and 19 paired healthy controls. Anatomic images were segmented in spinal cord GM and WM, both manually and using the AMU40 atlases. MS lesions were manually delineated. MR metrics were analyzed within normal-appearing and lesion regions in anterolateral and posterolateral WM and compared using Wilcoxon rank tests and z scores. Correlations between MR metrics and clinical scores in patients with MS were evaluated using the Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS:AMU40-based C1-to-C6 GM/WM automatic segmentations in patients with MS were evaluated relative to manual delineation. Mean Dice coefficients were 0.75/0.89, respectively. All MR metrics (WM/GM cross-sectional areas, normal-appearing and lesion diffusivities, and magnetization transfer/inhomogeneous magnetization transfer ratios) were observed altered in patients compared with controls (P < .05). Additionally, the absolute inhomogeneous magnetization transfer ratio z scores were significantly higher than those of the other MR metrics (P < .0001), suggesting a higher inhomogeneous magnetization transfer sensitivity toward spinal cord impairment in MS. Significant correlations with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (ρ = -0.73/P = .02, ρ = -0.81/P = .004) and the total Medical Research Council scale (ρ = 0.80/P = .009, ρ = -0.74/P = .02) were observed for inhomogeneous magnetization transfer and magnetization transfer ratio z scores, respectively, in normal-appearing WM regions, while weaker and nonsignificant correlations were obtained for DTI metrics. CONCLUSIONS: With inhomogeneous magnetization transfer being highly sensitive to spinal cord damage in MS compared with conventional magnetization transfer and DTI, it could generate great clinical interest for longitudinal follow-up and potential remyelinating clinical trials. In line with other advanced myelin techniques with which it could be compared, it opens perspectives for multicentric investigations.
Authors: H Kearney; T Schneider; M C Yiannakas; D R Altmann; C A M Wheeler-Kingshott; O Ciccarelli; D H Miller Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: V S Fonov; A Le Troter; M Taso; B De Leener; G Lévêque; M Benhamou; M Sdika; H Benali; P-F Pradat; D L Collins; V Callot; J Cohen-Adad Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-09-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Olivier M Girard; Virginie Callot; Valentin H Prevost; Benjamin Robert; Manuel Taso; Guilherme Ribeiro; Gopal Varma; Novena Rangwala; David C Alsop; Guillaume Duhamel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Benjamin De Leener; Vladimir S Fonov; D Louis Collins; Virginie Callot; Nikola Stikov; Julien Cohen-Adad Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-10-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jiwon Oh; Kathleen Zackowski; Min Chen; Scott Newsome; Shiv Saidha; Seth A Smith; Marie Diener-West; Jerry Prince; Craig K Jones; Peter C M Van Zijl; Peter A Calabresi; Daniel S Reich Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2012-08-13 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: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556