| Literature DB >> 35566426 |
Jan Valošek1,2,3, Petr Bednařík4,5, Miloš Keřkovský6,7, Petr Hluštík1,8, Josef Bednařík6,9,10, Alena Svatkova4,5,11.
Abstract
Degenerative spinal cord compression is a frequent pathological condition with increasing prevalence throughout aging. Initial non-myelopathic cervical spinal cord compression (NMDC) might progress over time into potentially irreversible degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). While quantitative MRI (qMRI) techniques demonstrated the ability to depict intrinsic tissue properties, longitudinal in-vivo biomarkers to identify NMDC patients who will eventually develop DCM are still missing. Thus, we aim to review the ability of qMRI techniques (such as diffusion MRI, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), magnetization transfer (MT) imaging, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS)) to serve as prognostic markers in NMDC. While DTI in NMDC patients consistently detected lower fractional anisotropy and higher mean diffusivity at compressed levels, caused by demyelination and axonal injury, MT and 1H-MRS, along with advanced and tract-specific diffusion MRI, recently revealed microstructural alterations, also rostrally pointing to Wallerian degeneration. Recent studies also disclosed a significant relationship between microstructural damage and functional deficits, as assessed by qMRI and electrophysiology, respectively. Thus, tract-specific qMRI, in combination with electrophysiology, critically extends our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of degenerative spinal cord compression and may provide predictive markers of DCM development for accurate patient management. However, the prognostic value must be validated in longitudinal studies.Entities:
Keywords: degenerative cervical myelopathy; diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; non-myelopathic cervical spinal cord compression; quantitative magnetic resonance imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35566426 PMCID: PMC9105390 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Nomenclature and definitions of non-myelopathic spinal cord compression across studies.
| Study | Nomenclature | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Original Articles | ||
| Bednarik et al., 2004 [ | Pre-symptomatic spondylotic cervical cord compression (P-SCCC) | MR signs of DSCC (spondylotic or discogenic) and axial cervical pain or clinical signs and/or symptoms of radiculopathy, but no clinical signs of myelopathy (mJOA ≥ 16; note—mJOA decreased, due to radiculopathy) |
| Keřkovský et al., 2012 [ | Asymptomatic spondylotic cervical cord encroachment (SCCE) | MR signs of DSCC and cervical pain and/or symptoms/signs of cervical radiculopathy, but without symptoms/signs of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (mJOA = 18) |
| Adamova et al., 2015 [ | Asymptomatic spondylotic cervical cord compression (ASCCC) | No detailed description (study focused on prevalence of ASCCC in patients with clinically symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis) (mJOA not reported) |
| Kovalova et al., 2016 [ | Non-myelopathic spondylotic cervical cord compression (NMSCCC) | MR signs of DSCC and possible presence of radiculopathy, but no myelopathic signs (mJOA not reported) |
| Keřkovský et al., 2017 [ | Asymptomatic degenerative cervical cord compression (ADCCC) | MR finding of DSCC and various clinical signs of cervical spine degenerative disease (cervical pain and radiculopathy), but no signs or symptoms of DCM (mJOA = 18) |
| Ellingson et al., 2018 [ | Asymptomatic cervical stenosis | No neurological symptomatology (mJOA = 18), but complaints of neck pain |
| Martin et al., 2018 [ | Asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC) | MR finding of DSCC, but an absence of any neurological symptoms and signs; neck pain was not considered a neurological symptom (mJOA = 18) |
| Kadanka Jr. et al., 2017 [ | Non-myelopathic degenerative cervical cord compression (NMDCCC) | MR signs of DSCC, but an absence of any myelopathic signs, possible presence of axial pain, symptoms or signs of upper extremity monoradiculopathy, or completely asymptomatic individuals (mJOA not reported) |
| Kadanka Jr. et al., 2021 [ | Non-myelopathic degenerative cervical cord compression (NMDCC) | MR signs of DSCC and presence of maximally one clinical myelopathic symptom, but no clinical myelopathic signs (mJOA ≥ 17) |
| Valošek et al., 2021 [ | Non-myelopathic degenerative cervical spinal cord compression (NMDC) | MR signs of DSCC with or without radiculopathy and electrophysiological changes, but without myelopathic symptoms/signs (mJOA = 18) |
| Reviews | ||
| Wilson et al., 2013 [ | Non-myelopathic patients with cervical stenosis | Review—no single definition |
| Witiw et al., 2018 [ | Asymptomatic cervical spinal cord compression (CSCC) | Review—no single definition |
| Smith et al., 2020 [ | Asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC) | Review—no single definition |
| Badhiwala et al., 2020 [ | Cervical spinal cord compression without myelopathy | Review—MR signs of DSCC, absence of any myelopathic signs, and clinical radiculopathy with or without electrophysiological changes or no signs of symptoms of radiculopathy (mJOA = 18) |
DSCC, degenerative spinal cord compression; mJOA, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale; MR, magnetic resonance.
Figure 1Quantitative MRI (qMRI) markers, derived using various qMRI methods. (A) Morphometric metrics measuring the degree of spinal cord compression, based on structural MRI. Upper panel shows compression ratio calculated as a ratio between the anteroposterior (AP) and transverse (RL) diameters, and lower panel shows solidity calculated as a ratio of cross-sectional area to the area of the smallest convex polygon surrounding all positive pixels in the image. Image courtesy of Magda Horáková. (B) Map of fractional anisotropy (FA), estimated using diffusion tensor imaging model from diffusion-weighted imaging data. Upper panel shows the FA map, and lower panel shows the FA map overlayed with probabilistic PAM50 atlas [41] of white and gray matter, allowing for tissue-specific analysis. Adapted with permission from Ref. [5] under creative common license; (C) single-voxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) measuring metabolic concentrations from above the compression level C2/3 (red box). Adapted with permission from Ref. [29] under creative common license.
Figure 2Significant reduction of the cross-sectional area (CSA) above the stenosis level. (A) Spinal cord (SC) CSA reduction at the C3 level, between NMDC and DCM patients, relative to healthy controls. Asterisk symbols (*) indicate significant difference between groups. Adapted with permission from Ref. [5] under creative common license; (B) Grey and (C) white CSA reduction at C2/3 level, between DCM patients and HC. Adapted with permission from Ref. [37] under creative common license.
List of studies comprising of patients with non-myelopathic/asymptomatic spinal cord compression utilizing qMRI techniques. Studies are ordered chronologically.
| Study | Cohort | Field Strength, Voxel Size, qMRI Technique, ROI | Key Results | Conclusion/Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keřkovský et al., 2012 [ | 32 NMDC patients (mJOA = 18) | 1.5T | Lower FA and higher MD at MCL in DCM, compared to NMDC | DTI showed potential to discriminate between NMDC and symptomatic DCM patients |
| 20 DCM patients (mJOA < 18) | 1.25 × 1.25 × 4 mm3 | Lower FA, no MD change at MCL in NMDC, relative to HC | Differences between NMDC and HC could be caused by demyelination, but potentially also by WM/GM mixing | |
| 13 HC | DTI (FA, MD), entire axial SC | There was no difference in any of the DTI parameters for subsets of patients with and without electrophysiological abnormality | ||
| Keřkovský et al., 2017 [ | 93 NMDC patients (mJOA = 18) | 1.5T | Lower FA and increased MD at MCL in DCM, compared to NMDC | DTI showed differences in FA and MD between NMDC and symptomatic DCM patients |
| 37 DCM patients (mJOA < 18) | 1.25 × 1.25 × 4 mm3 | No differences between NMDC and HC reported | ||
| 71 HC | DTI (FA, MD), entire axial SC | |||
| Kadanka et al., 2017 [ | 40 NMDC patients (mJOA not reported) | 1.5T | DTI parameters showed no significant predictive power in longitudinal follow-up | The development of DCM was associated with several parameters, such as radiculopathy or electrophysiological measures |
| 72 subjects with cervical radiculopathy or cervical pain (mJOA not reported) | 1.25 × 1.25 × 4 mm3 | DTI parameters showed no significant predictive power | ||
| DTI (FA, MD), entire axial SC | ||||
| Martin et al., 2018 [ | 20 NMDC patients (mJOA = 18) | 3T | Lower FA at MCL in entire axial ROI and ventral columns in NMDC, compared to HC | Changes in FA, MTR, and T2*WI WM/GM intensity point to demyelination and axonal injury as predominant pathogenic mechanisms in NMDC patients |
| 20 HC | 1.25 × 1.25 × 5 mm3 (DWI); | Lower MTR in the rostral region (C1-C3) and ventral columns in NMDC, compared to HC | Changes were observed at MCL, but also rostrally and caudally | |
| DTI (FA), MT (MTR) and T2*WI WM/GM, entire axial ROI and WM columns and GM | Higher T2*WI WM/GM at MCL and in rostral and caudal regions in NMDC compared to controls | |||
| Ellingson et al., 2018 [ | 18 NMDC patients (mJOA = 18) | 3T | Most patients (47 from 66) showed stationary longitudinal DTI measurements | DTI metrics correlated with neurological impairments, assessed by the mJOA scale, and may be valuable predictors of neurological status |
| 48 patients with clinical symptoms (mJOA < 18) | 1.1 × 1.1 × 4–5 mm3 | Pooled FA and MD at MCL from all patients and all time points showed correlation with mJOA scale | ||
| DTI (FA, MD), entire axial SC | ||||
| Labounek et al., 2020 [ | 33 NMDC patients (divided into two groups—mild and severe compression) | 3T | Lower MD in WM in NMDC with mild compression, compared to HC | DTI and ball-and-sticks models demonstrated differences between HC and NMDC patients in both WM and GM |
| 13 HC | 0.65 × 0.65 × 3.00 mm3 (interpolated) | Higher MD and d in GM in NMDC with severe compression, relative to HC | Optimized multi-shell dMRI protocol, with reduced field-of-view, outperformed clinically used single-shell protocol | |
| DTI (FA, MD) and ball-and-sticks model (f1, d), WM–GM difference, and “heuristic” parameters derived from these metrics, WM, and GM | Lower WM–GM difference for MD and d in NMDC with mild and severe compression, compared to HC | |||
| Difference in several “heuristic” parameters derived from FA, MD, f1, and d between groups, see the study [ | ||||
| Valošek et al., 2021 [ | 103 NMDC patients (mJOA = 18) | 3T | Lower FA and f1 and higher MD, AD, RD, and d in NMDC and DCM, compared to HC, with more severe changes in DCM, compared to NMDC | Compression primary affected lateral and dorsal white matter tracts and gray matter, pointing to demyelination and trans-synaptic degeneration |
| 21 DCM patients (mJOA < 18) | 0.65 × 0.65 × 3.00 mm3 (interpolated) | Changes were detected predominantly in dorsal and lateral tracts and GM at MCL and rostrally at the C3 level | Above the compression changes suggest Wallerian degeneration | |
| 60 HC | DTI (FA, MD, AD, RD) and ball-and-sticks models (f1, d), WM columns and tracts, and GM regions | DCM patients showed changes also in the ventral columns, compared to HC | Changes were more profound in DCM, compared to NMDC and HC, suggesting progressive changes in patients with compression over time | |
| dMRI changes correlated with the mJOA scale and reflected electrophysiological findings | Ball-and-sticks model showed changes not detected by DTI model | |||
| Horak et al., 2021 [ | 60 NMDC patients (mJOA = 18) | 3T | Increased total creatin/tNAA ratio in NMDC and DCM, relative to HC | 1H-MRS revealed neurochemical changes at the above the compression level C2/3 in both DCM and NMDC, compared to HC |
| 13 DCM patients (mJOA < 18) | 8 × 9 × 45 mm3 (single MRS voxel) | Changed myo-inositol/tNAA and glutamate + glutamine/tNAA ratios in DCM, compared to HC | Neurochemical changes suggest demyelination and Wallerian degeneration | |
| 47 HC | 1H-MRS | myo-inositol/tNAA ratio in DCM patients correlated with the mJOA scale | ||
| 102 NMDC (mJOA = 18) | 1.5T and 3T | Logistic model combining compression ratio, cross-sectional area, solidity, and torsion detected compression with AUC = 0.947 (compared to expert raters) | The semi-automated method demonstrated outstanding compression detection, with better inter-trial variability, compared to manual raters | |
| Horakova et al., 2022 [ | 16 DCM (mJOA < 18) | 0.60 × 0.60 × 4.0 mm3 (1.5T) | The inter-trial variability (1.5 and 3 T) was better for the semi-automated method (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.858 for CR and 0.735 for CSA), compared to expert raters (mean coefficient for three expert raters 0.722 for CR and 0.486 for CSA) | |
| 66 HC | Morphometric parameters (cross-sectional area (CSA), compression ratio (CR), solidity, and torsion) | No morphometric metric showed the discriminative power to distinguish between NMDC and DCM |
AUC, area under the curve; CR, compression ratio; CSA, cross-sectional area; FA, fractional anisotropy; MD, mean diffusivity; AD, axial diffusivity; RD, radial diffusivity; f1, primary partial volume fraction (anisotropic compartment of ball-and-sticks model); d, ball-and-sticks model diffusivity; MTR, magnetic transfer ratio; 1H-MRS, single-voxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy; WM, white matter; GM, gray matter; mJOA, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale; tNAA, total N-acetylaspartate.
Figure 3Group differences between NMDC and DCM patients, relative to healthy controls (HC). (A) Between-group differences in the f1 diffusion metric (i.e., primary partial volume fraction of the ball-and-sticks model) at C3, above the compression level. Adapted with permission from Ref. [5] under creative common license. (B) Between-group difference in neurometabolies ratios, gained from single-voxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) from above the compression level C2/3. Asterisk symbols (*) indicate significant difference between groups. Adapted with permission from Ref. [29] under creative common license.
Figure 4Typical dMRI workflow. dMRI data acquisition is followed by format conversion, usually from DICOM format, provided by the scanner, to NIfTI format [130], which is supported by many of neuroimaging tools. The subsequent processing pipeline typically includes correction of susceptibility-induced geometrical distortions, motion and eddy currents artifacts, and estimation of diffusion model(s). Final quantitative analysis can be done in various ways using a single region-of-interest (ROI) approach, atlas-based approach, or tractography. DTI, diffusion tensor imaging; FA, fractional anisotropy; MD, mean diffusivity; RD, radial diffusivity; AD, axial diffusivity; NODDI, neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging; ODI, orientation dispersion index; f1, primary partial volume fraction (anisotropic compartment of the ball-and-sticks model). The illustration of the tractography is reprinted with permission from Ref. [79]. Copyright, 2014, Elsevier.