Top

Published in:

Open Access 18-12-2023 | Multiple Sclerosis | Advanced Neuroimaging

Automatic estimation of brain parenchymal fraction in patients with multple sclerosis: a comparison between synthetic MRI and an established automated brain segmentation software based on FSL

Authors: Ilyas Yazici, Britta Krieger, Barbara Bellenberg, Theodoros Ladopoulos, Ralf Gold, Ruth Schneider, Carsten Lukas

Published in: Neuroradiology | Issue 2/2024

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to validate the estimation of the brain parenchymal fraction (BPF) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (SyMRI) by comparison with software tools of the FMRIB Software Library (FSL). In addition to a cross-sectional method comparison, longitudinal volume changes were assessed to further elucidate the suitability of SyMRI for quantification of disease-specific changes.

Methods

MRI data from 216 patients with MS and 28 control participants were included for volume estimation by SyMRI and FSL-SIENAX. Moreover, longitudinal data from 35 patients with MS were used to compare registration-based percentage brain volume changes estimated using FSL-SIENA to difference-based calculations of volume changes using SyMRI.

Results

We observed strong correlations of estimated brain volumes between the two methods. While SyMRI overestimated grey matter and BPF compared to FSL-SIENAX, indicating a systematic bias, there was excellent agreement according to intra-class correlation coefficients for grey matter and good agreement for BPF and white matter. Bland–Altman plots suggested that the inter-method differences in BPF were smaller in patients with brain atrophy compared to those without atrophy. Longitudinal analyses revealed a tendency for higher atrophy rates for SyMRI than for SIENA, but SyMRI had a robust correlation and a good agreement with SIENA.

Conclusion

In summary, BPF based on data from SyMRI and FSL-SIENAX is not directly transferable because an overestimation and higher variability of SyMRI values were observed. However, the consistency and correlations between the two methods were satisfactory, and SyMRI was suitable to quantify disease-specific atrophy in MS.

Available only for authorised users

Wallin MT et al (2019) Global, regional, and national burden of multiple sclerosis 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Neurol 18:269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30443-5CrossRef

Marciniewicz E, Bladowska J, Podgórski P, Sąsiadek M (2019) The role of MR volumetry in brain atrophy assessment in multiple sclerosis: A review of the literature. Adv Clin Exp Med 28(7):989–999. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/94137CrossRefPubMed

Dalton CM (2004) Early development of multiple sclerosis is associated with progressive grey matter atrophy in patients presenting with clinically isolated syndromes. Brain 127(5):1101–1107. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh126CrossRefPubMed

Ceccarelli A et al (2008) A voxel-based morphometry study of grey matter loss in Patients with MS with different clinical phenotypes. Neuroimage 42(1):315–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.173CrossRefPubMed

Radü E, Bendfeldt K, Mueller-Lenke N, Magon S, Sprenger T (2013) Brain atrophy: an in-vivo measure of disease activity in multiple sclerosis. Swiss Med Wkly 143:w13887. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2013.13887CrossRefPubMed

Kappos L et al (2016) Inclusion of brain volume loss in a revised measure of ‘no evidence of disease activity’ (NEDA-4) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis J 22(10):1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458515616701CrossRef

Allanach JR, Farrell JW, Mésidor M, Karimi-Abdolrezaee S (2022) Current status of neuroprotective and neuroregenerative strategies in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Multiple Sclerosis J 28(1):29–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585211008760CrossRef

NC Fox, PA (1997) Freeborough, Brain atrophy progression measured from registered serial MRI: Validation and application to alzheimer’s disease. J Magn Resonance Imaging 7(6):1069–1075https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1880070620

Rocca MA et al (2017) Brain MRI atrophy quantification in MS. Neurology 88(4):403–413. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003542CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Manjón JV, Coupé P (2016) volBrain: An online MRI brain volumetry system. Front Neuroinform 10:30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2016.00030CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

McAllister A, Leach J, West H, Jones B, Zhang B, Serai S (2017) Quantitative synthetic MRI in children: Normative intracranial tissue segmentation values during development. Am J Neuroradiol 38(12):2364–2372. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5398CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Parlak S et al (2022) Reduced myelin in patients with isolated hippocampal sclerosis as assessed by SyMRI. Neuroradiol 64(1):99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02824-6CrossRef

13.

Hagiwara A et al (2021) Age-related changes in relaxation times, proton density, myelin, and tissue volumes in adult brain analyzed by 2-dimensional quantitative synthetic magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 56(3):163–172. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000720CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lou B et al (2021) quantitative analysis of synthetic magnetic resonance imaging in alzheimer’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci 13:638731. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.638731CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Granberg T et al (2016) Clinical feasibility of synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: A diagnostic and volumetric validation study. Am J Neuroradiol 37(6):1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

de Stefano N et al (2015) Establishing pathological cut-offs of brain atrophy rates in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 87(1):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2014-309903CrossRefPubMed

17.

Pichler A et al (2016) Combined analysis of global and compartmental brain volume changes in early multiple sclerosis in clinical practice. Multiple Sclerosis J 22(3):340–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458515593405CrossRef

18.

Ghione E et al (2019) Aging and brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 29(4):527–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12625CrossRefPubMed

19.

Langeskov-Christensen M et al (2021) Efficacy of high-intensity aerobic exercise on brain MRI measures in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 96(2):e203–e213. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000011241CrossRefPubMed

20.

de Stefano N et al (2010) Assessing brain atrophy rates in a large population of untreated multiple sclerosis subtypes. Neurology 74(23):1868–1876. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e24136CrossRefPubMed

21.

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

22.

Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33(11):1444. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cuschieri S (2019) The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth 13(5):31. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18CrossRef

24.

Warntjes JBM, Dahlqvist O, Lundberg P (2007) Novel method for rapid, simultaneousT1, T*2, and proton density quantification. Magn Reson Med 57(3):528–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21165CrossRefPubMed

25.

Warntjes JB, Leinhard OD, West J, Lundberg P (2008) Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: Optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 60(2):320–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21635CrossRefPubMed

26.

West J, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2012) Novel whole brain segmentation and volume estimation using quantitative MRI. Eur Radiol 22(5):998–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2336-7CrossRefPubMed

27.

Popescu V, Battaglini M, Hoogstrate WS, Verfaillie SC, Sluimer IC, van Schijndel RA, van Dijk BW, Cover KS, Knol DL, Jenkinson M, Barkhof F, de Stefano N, Vrenken H, MAGNIMS Study Group (2012) Optimizing parameter choice for FSL-Brain Extraction Tool (BET) on 3D T1 images in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage. 61(4):1484–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.074CrossRefPubMed

28.

Smith SM, de Stefano N, Jenkinson M, Matthews PM (2001) Normalized Accurate Measurement of Longitudinal Brain Change. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25(3):466–475. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200105000-00022CrossRefPubMed

29.

Smith SM et al (2002) Accurate, Robust, and Automated Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Brain Change Analysis. Neuroimage 17(1):479–489. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1040CrossRefPubMed

30.

Smith SM et al (2004) Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 23(Suppl 1):S208–S219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051CrossRefPubMed

31.

Smith SM (2002) Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp 17(3):143–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10062CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Jenkinson M, Smith S (2001) A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal 5(2):143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1361-8415(01)00036-6CrossRefPubMed

33.

Jenkinson M, Bannister P, Brady M, Smith S (2002) Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage 17(2):825–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(02)91132-8CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zhang Y, Brady M, Smith S (2001) Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(1):45–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.906424CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lee SM et al (2022) Clinical adaptation of synthetic MRI-based whole brain volume segmentation in children at 3 T: comparison with modified SPM segmentation methods. Neuroradiology 64(2):381–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02779-8CrossRefPubMed

36.

Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6(4):284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284CrossRef

37.

Andica C et al (2018) Automated brain tissue and myelin volumetry based on quantitative MR imaging with various in-plane resolutions. J Neuroradiol 45(3):164–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2017.10.002CrossRefPubMed

38.

Saccenti L et al (2019) Brain tissue and myelin volumetric analysis in multiple sclerosis at 3T MRI with various in-plane resolutions using synthetic MRI. Neuroradiology 61(11):1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-019-02241-wCrossRefPubMed

39.

Durand-Dubief F et al (2012) Reliability of longitudinal brain volume loss measurements between 2 sites in patients with multiple sclerosis: comparison of 7 quantification techniques. Am J Neuroradiol 33(10):1918–1924. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Fujita S et al (2021) Accelerated isotropic multiparametric imaging by high spatial resolution 3D-QALAS with compressed sensing. Invest Radiol 56(5):292–300. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000744CrossRefPubMed

Title: Automatic estimation of brain parenchymal fraction in patients with multple sclerosis: a comparison between synthetic MRI and an established automated brain segmentation software based on FSL
Authors: Ilyas Yazici
Britta Krieger
Barbara Bellenberg
Theodoros Ladopoulos
Ralf Gold
Ruth Schneider
Carsten Lukas
Publication date: 18-12-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Multiple Sclerosis
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published in: Neuroradiology / Issue 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0028-3940
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1920
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-023-03264-0

Advances in Alzheimer's

Alzheimer's Disease
Independent Medical Education

Alzheimer's research and care is changing rapidly. Keep up with the latest developments from key international conferences, together with expert insights on how to integrate these advances into practice.

This content is intended for healthcare professionals outside of the UK.

Supported by:

Lilly

Developed by: Springer Healthcare IME

Learn more

EASD 2024

Springer Medicine

Automatic estimation of brain parenchymal fraction in patients with multple sclerosis: a comparison between synthetic MRI and an established automated brain segmentation software based on FSL

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Advances in Alzheimer's

EASD 2024

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2024

Exploring the impact of super-resolution deep learning on MR angiography image quality

Impaired glymphatic system revealed by DTI-ALPS in cerebral palsy due to periventricular leukomalacia: relation with brain lesion burden and hand dysfunction

Fetal brain MR angiography at 1.5 T: a feasible study

33rd year Turkish Society of Neuroradiology Congress

European Society of Neuroradiology (ESNR)

Review of craniofacial pain syndromes involving the greater occipital nerve: relevant anatomy, clinical findings, and interventional management

Advances in Alzheimer's