Top

European Radiology

Published in:

Open Access 01-03-2019 | Neuro

Repeatability and reproducibility of FreeSurfer, FSL-SIENAX and SPM brain volumetric measurements and the effect of lesion filling in multiple sclerosis

Authors: Chunjie Guo, Daniel Ferreira, Katarina Fink, Eric Westman, Tobias Granberg

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2019

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the cross-sectional robustness of commonly used volumetric software and effects of lesion filling in multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

Nine MS patients (six females; age 38±13 years, disease duration 7.3±5.2 years) were scanned twice with repositioning on three MRI scanners (Siemens Aera 1.5T, Avanto 1.5T, Trio 3.0T) the same day. Volumetric T₁-weighted images were processed with FreeSurfer, FSL-SIENAX, SPM and SPM-CAT before and after 3D FLAIR lesion filling with LST. The whole-brain, grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) volumes were calculated with and without normalisation to the intracranial volume or FSL-SIENAX scaling factor. Robustness was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CoV).

Results

Variability in volumetrics was lower within than between scanners (CoV 0.17–0.96% vs. 0.65–5.0%, p<0.001). All software provided similarly robust segmentations of the brain volume on the same scanner (CoV 0.17–0.28%, p=0.076). Normalisation improved inter-scanner reproducibility in FreeSurfer and SPM-based methods, but the FSL-SIENAX scaling factor did not improve robustness. Generally, SPM-based methods produced the most consistent volumetrics, while FreeSurfer was more robust for WM volumes on different scanners. FreeSurfer had more robust normalised brain and GM volumes on different scanners than FSL-SIENAX (p=0.004). MS lesion filling changed the output of FSL-SIENAX, SPM and SPM-CAT but not FreeSurfer.

Conclusions

Consistent use of the same scanner is essential and normalisation to the intracranial volume is recommended for multiple scanners. Based on robustness, SPM-based methods are particularly suitable for cross-sectional volumetry. FreeSurfer poses a suitable alternative with WM segmentations less sensitive to MS lesions.

Key Points

• The same scanner should be used for brain volumetry. If different scanners are used, the intracranial volume normalisation improves the FreeSurfer and SPM robustness (but not the FSL scaling factor).

• FreeSurfer, FSL and SPM all provide robust measures of the whole brain volume on the same MRI scanner. SPM-based methods overall provide the most robust segmentations (except white matter segmentations on different scanners where FreeSurfer is more robust).

• MS lesion filling with Lesion Segmentation Toolbox changes the output of FSL-SIENAX and SPM. FreeSurfer output is not affected by MS lesion filling since it already takes white matter hypointensities into account and is therefore particularly suitable for MS brain volumetry.

Available only for authorised users

Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F et al (2018) Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 17:162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2 CrossRefPubMed

Filippi M, Rocca MA, Ciccarelli O et al (2016) MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines. Lancet Neurol 15:292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00393-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Enzinger C, Barkhof F, Ciccarelli O et al (2015) Nonconventional MRI and microstructural cerebral changes in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol 11:676–686. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.194 CrossRefPubMed

Barkhof F, Calabresi PA, Miller DH, Reingold SC (2009) Imaging outcomes for neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis trials. Nat Rev Neurol 5:256–266. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2009.41 CrossRefPubMed

Liu Y, Duan Y, Huang J et al (2018) Different patterns of longitudinal brain and spinal cord changes and their associations with disability progression in NMO and MS. Eur Radiol 28:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4921-x CrossRefPubMed

Sampat MP, Healy BC, Meier DS, Dell'Oglio E, Liguori M, Guttmann CR (2010) Disease modeling in multiple sclerosis: assessment and quantification of sources of variability in brain parenchymal fraction measurements. Neuroimage 52:1367–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.075

Chard DT, Jackson JS, Miller DH, Wheeler-Kingshott CAM (2010) Reducing the impact of white matter lesions on automated measures of brain gray and white matter volumes. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:223–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22214 CrossRefPubMed

Vrenken H, Jenkinson M, Horsfield MA et al (2013) Recommendations to improve imaging and analysis of brain lesion load and atrophy in longitudinal studies of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 260:2458–2471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-012-6762-5 CrossRefPubMed

Han X, Jovicich J, Salat D et al (2006) Reliability of MRI-derived measurements of human cerebral cortical thickness: the effects of field strength, scanner upgrade and manufacturer. Neuroimage 32:180–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.051 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jovicich J, Czanner S, Han X et al (2009) MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths. Neuroimage 46:177–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.010 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Fischl B (2012) FreeSurfer. Neuroimage 62:774–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Smith SM (2012) FSL. Neuroimage 62:782–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015

13.

Ashburner J, Friston KJ (2005) Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 26:839–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gaser C, Dahnke R (2016) CAT - a computational anatomy toolbox for the analysis of structural MRI data. p 1

15.

Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B et al (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69:292–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22366 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA et al (2014) Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 83:278–286. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33:1444–1452. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ferreira D, Voevodskaya O, Imrell K et al (2014) Multiple sclerosis patients lacking oligoclonal bands in the cerebrospinal fluid have less global and regional brain atrophy. J Neuroimmunol 274:149–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroim.2014.06.010 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Smith SM, Zhang Y, Jenkinson M et al (2002) Accurate, robust, and automated longitudinal and cross-sectional brain change analysis. Neuroimage 17:479–489CrossRefPubMed

20.

Popescu V, Battaglini M, Hoogstrate WS et al (2012) Optimizing parameter choice for FSL-Brain Extraction Tool (BET) on 3D T1 images in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 61:1484–1494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.074 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ashburner J (2007) A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage 38:95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.007 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Schmidt P, Gaser C, Arsic M et al (2012) An automated tool for detection of FLAIR-hyperintense white-matter lesions in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 59:3774–3783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.032 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 57:289–300

24.

Klauschen F, Goldman A, Barra V, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Lundervold A (2009) Evaluation of automated brain MR image segmentation and volumetry methods. Hum Brain Mapp 30:1310–1327. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20599

25.

Heinen R, Bouvy WH, Mendrik AM, Viergever MA, Biessels GJ, de Bresser J (2016) Robustness of automated methods for brain volume measurements across different MRI field strengths. PLoS One 11:e0165719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165719

26.

Kazemi K, Noorizadeh N (2014) Quantitative comparison of SPM, FSL, and brainsuite for brain MR image segmentation. J Biomed Phys Eng 4:13–26PubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Wattjes MP, Rovira À, Miller D et al (2015) Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis—establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol 11:597–606. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.157

28.

Vågberg M, Axelsson M, Birgander R et al (2017) Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Association and the Swedish Neuroradiological Society. Acta Neurol Scand 135:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12667 CrossRefPubMed

29.

De Stefano N, Giorgio A, Battaglini M et al (2010) Assessing brain atrophy rates in a large population of untreated multiple sclerosis subtypes. Neurology 74:1868–1876. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e24136 CrossRefPubMed

30.

De Stefano N, Stromillo ML, Giorgio A et al (2015) Establishing pathological cut-offs of brain atrophy rates in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry:jnnp-2014-309903. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2014-309903

31.

Biberacher V, Schmidt P, Keshavan A et al (2016) Intra- and interscanner variability of magnetic resonance imaging based volumetry in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 142:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.035 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Mendrik AM, Vincken KL, Kuijf HJ et al (2015) MRBrainS challenge: online evaluation framework for brain image segmentation in 3T MRI scans. In: Computational intelligence and neuroscience. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2015/813696/. Accessed 11 Jul 2018

33.

Granberg T, Uppman M, Hashim F et al (2016) Clinical feasibility of synthetic mri in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4665 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

West J, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2011) Novel whole brain segmentation and volume estimation using quantitative MRI. Eur Radiol 22:998–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2336-7 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Durand-Dubief F, Belaroussi B, Armspach JP et al (2012) Reliability of longitudinal brain volume loss measurements between 2 sites in patients with multiple sclerosis: comparison of 7 quantification techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3107

36.

Valverde S, Oliver A, Roura E et al (2015) Quantifying brain tissue volume in multiple sclerosis with automated lesion segmentation and filling. Neuroimage Clin 9:640–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2015.10.012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Reuter M, Schmansky NJ, Rosas HD, Fischl B (2012) Within-subject template estimation for unbiased longitudinal image analysis. Neuroimage 61:1402–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.084 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Repeatability and reproducibility of FreeSurfer, FSL-SIENAX and SPM brain volumetric measurements and the effect of lesion filling in multiple sclerosis
Authors: Chunjie Guo
Daniel Ferreira
Katarina Fink
Eric Westman
Tobias Granberg
Publication date: 01-03-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5710-x

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Repeatability and reproducibility of FreeSurfer, FSL-SIENAX and SPM brain volumetric measurements and the effect of lesion filling in multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with mitral valve prolapse: Focus on late gadolinium enhancement and T1 mapping

Correction to: Patient dose reference levels in surgery: a multicenter study

Automated MR-based lung volume segmentation in population-based whole-body MR imaging: correlation with clinical characteristics, pulmonary function testing and obstructive lung disease

Clinical significance of acute and chronic ischaemic lesions in multiple cerebral vascular territories

Correlation of native T1 mapping with right ventricular function and pulmonary haemodynamics in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension before and after balloon pulmonary angioplasty

Demystification of AI-driven medical image interpretation: past, present and future