Juli Alonso1,2, Deborah Pareto3,4, Manel Alberich3,4, Tobias Kober5,6, Bénédicte Maréchal5,6, Xavier Lladó7, Alex Rovira3,4. 1. Unitat de Ressonància Magnètica. Servei de Radiologia (IDI), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Pg Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. juli.alonso.idi@gencat.cat. 2. Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. juli.alonso.idi@gencat.cat. 3. Unitat de Ressonància Magnètica. Servei de Radiologia (IDI), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Pg Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthcare AG, Lausanne, Switzerland. 6. Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 7. Department of Computer Architecture and Technology, University of Girona, Girona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For clinical purposes and research projects in neurological disease, it is of interest to evaluate the performance and comparability of available sequences and software packages for brain volume assessment to determine whether they provide equivalent results. This study compares cross-sectional brain volume values derived from images obtained with MP-RAGE or MP2RAGE sequences, using SIENA/X, SPM, or MorphoBox. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MP-RAGE and MP2RAGE T1-weighted images were obtained from 24 healthy volunteers. Back-to-back scans were performed in 12 of them. Brain volumes, coefficients of variation, and concordance coefficients were determined. RESULTS: Significant differences were found for most brain volumes derived from MP-RAGE and MP2RAGE images. MP2RAGE-derived measures showed a non-significant trend to larger coefficients of variation. There were statistical differences between brain volumes determined with the three software packages, whereas coefficients of variation were comparable for most brain volumes. Correlation and concordance values were lower for CSF and brain parenchyma fraction measures. CONCLUSION: The results obtained advise caution when comparing brain volumes obtained by different sequences and software packages. Of note, for most brain volume measures, the MP2RAGE and MorphoBox coefficients of variation were similar to those obtained with MP-RAGE, SIENA/X or SPM, accepted tools for clinical research.
OBJECTIVE: For clinical purposes and research projects in neurological disease, it is of interest to evaluate the performance and comparability of available sequences and software packages for brain volume assessment to determine whether they provide equivalent results. This study compares cross-sectional brain volume values derived from images obtained with MP-RAGE or MP2RAGE sequences, using SIENA/X, SPM, or MorphoBox. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MP-RAGE and MP2RAGE T1-weighted images were obtained from 24 healthy volunteers. Back-to-back scans were performed in 12 of them. Brain volumes, coefficients of variation, and concordance coefficients were determined. RESULTS: Significant differences were found for most brain volumes derived from MP-RAGE and MP2RAGE images. MP2RAGE-derived measures showed a non-significant trend to larger coefficients of variation. There were statistical differences between brain volumes determined with the three software packages, whereas coefficients of variation were comparable for most brain volumes. Correlation and concordance values were lower for CSF and brain parenchyma fraction measures. CONCLUSION: The results obtained advise caution when comparing brain volumes obtained by different sequences and software packages. Of note, for most brain volume measures, the MP2RAGE and MorphoBox coefficients of variation were similar to those obtained with MP-RAGE, SIENA/X or SPM, accepted tools for clinical research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atrophy; Brain; MP-RAGE; MP2RAGE; Magnetic resonance imaging
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