| Literature DB >> 35780663 |
Debbie Anaby1, Shai Shrot2, Eugenia Belenky2, Bruria Ben-Zeev3, Michal Tzadok3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether white matter (WM) diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) derived measures correlate with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) disease severity. COHORT AND METHODS: A multi-shell diffusion protocol was added to the clinical MRI brain scans of thirteen patients including 6 males and 7 females with a mean ± std age of 17.2 ± 5.8 years. Fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) were generated from DTI and neurite density index (NDI), orientation dispersion index (ODI) and free water index (fiso) were generated from NODDI. A clinical score was determined for each patient according to the existence of epilepsy, developmental delay, autism or psychiatric disorders. Whole-brain segmented WM was averaged for each parametric map and 3 group k-means clustering was performed on the NDI and FA maps. MRI quantitative parameters were correlated with the clinical scores.Entities:
Keywords: Diffusion tensor imaging; Neurite orientation and dispersion imaging; Tuberous sclerosis complex; White matter
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35780663 PMCID: PMC9421460 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.891
Clinical characteristics of the TSC patients.
| Patient | Sex | Age | Genetics | Clinical | Epilepsy | Number | Epilepsy | School | Developmental | Autism | Psychiatric |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 11 | TSC2 | 4 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | † | † |
| 2 | F | 11 | TSC1 | 1 | >5 | 2 | Focal | Mainstream | – | – | – |
| 3 | F | 12 | TSC2 | 2 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | – | – |
| 4 | M | 12 | TSC2 | 4 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | † | † |
| 5 | M | 14 | TSC2 | 3 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | † | – |
| 6 | F | 15 | TSC1 | 2 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | – | – |
| 7 | F | 16 | TSC2 | 3 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | – | † |
| 8 | F | 16 | TSC2 | 0 | – | – | – | Mainstream | – | – | – |
| 9 | M | 19 | TSC2 | 4 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | † | † |
| 10 | M | 19 | TSC2 | 4 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | † | † |
| 11 | F | 25 | – | 4 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | † | † |
| 12 | M | 26 | TSC2 | 2 | >5 | 2 | Focal | Mainstream | – | – | † |
| 13 | M | 28 | TSC2 | 3 | >5 | >3 | Focal and generalized | Special | † | † | † |
M – male, F - female.
Fig. 1DTI-derived maps of FA and MD and NODDI-derived maps of NDI, ODI and fiso along with their segmented WM from patients #7 and #8 (Table 1). FA seems thin and sparse, with somewhat lower values in patient #7 than patient #8. MD values are lower in patient #8 than in patient #7. The NODDI-derived maps clearly show a reduction in WM NDI in patient #7, while ODI also seems mildly reduced. Fiso values do not show a clear difference between the two patients, although the number of voxels showing a free water fraction is reduced in patient #7 compared with patient #8.
Fig. 2Partial correlations between whole brain WM NODDI- and DTI-derived metrics and clinical score. NDI and MD showed significant correlations.
Fig. 3WM NDI and FA representative maps of patient 12 (A & B, respectively) along with their clustered maps (A1 & B1, respectively).
Fig. 4Spearman correlations of cluster voxel percentages out of whole-brain white matter, adjusted for age, according to NDI (A) and FA (B). The cluster voxel percentages were averaged per clinical score and their contribution to the total is shown as a stack plot; according to NDI (C) and FA (D) maps. Significance was defined as p < 0.05.