Evaluation of Intra- and Interscanner Reliability of MRI Protocols for Spinal Cord Gray Matter and Total Cross-Sectional Area Measurements

Overview

Journal J Magn Reson Imaging

Date 2018 Sep 11

PMID 30198209

Citations 14

Authors

Nico Papinutto

Roland G Henry

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In vivo quantification of spinal cord atrophy in neurological diseases using MRI has attracted increasing attention.

Purpose: To compare across different platforms the most promising imaging techniques to assess human spinal cord atrophy.

Study Type: Test/retest multiscanner study.

Subjects: Twelve healthy volunteers.

Field Strength/sequence: Three different 3T scanner platforms (Siemens, Philips, and GE) / optimized phase sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR), T -weighted (T -w), and T *-weighted (T *-w) protocols.

Assessment: On all images acquired, two operators assessed contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM), and between WM and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF); one experienced operator measured total cross-sectional area (TCA) and GM area using JIM and the Spinal Cord Toolbox (SCT).

Statistical Tests: Coefficient of variation (COV); intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC); mixed effect models; analysis of variance (t-tests).

Results: For all the scanners, GM/WM CNR was higher for PSIR than T *-w (P < 0.0001) and WM/CSF CNR for T -w was the highest (P < 0.0001). For TCA, using JIM, median COVs were smaller than 1.5% and ICC >0.95, while using SCT, median COVs were in the range 2.2-2.75% and ICC 0.79-0.95. For GM, despite some failures of the automatic segmentation, median COVs using SCT on T *-w were smaller than using JIM manual PSIR segmentations. In the mixed effect models, the subject was always the main contributor to the variance of area measurements and scanner often contributed to TCA variance (P < 0.05). Using JIM, TCA measurements on T *-w were different than on PSIR (P = 0.0021) and T -w (P = 0.0018), while using SCT, no notable differences were found between T -w and T *-w (P = 0.18). JIM and SCT-derived TCA were not different on T -w (P = 0.66), while they were different for T *-w (P < 0.0001). GM area derived using SCT/T *-w versus JIM/PSIR were different (P < 0.0001).

Data Conclusion: The present work sets reference values for the magnitude of the contribution of different effects to cord area measurement intra- and interscanner variability.

Level Of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 4 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1078-1090.

Citing Articles

Spinal cord cross sign: a potential marker for hereditary spastic paraplegia type 5.

Zhang F, Hu J, Xiao Z, Lin C, Huang Z, Wang N Neuroradiology. 2025; .

PMID: 39853345 DOI: 10.1007/s00234-025-03543-y.

Spinal cord evaluation in multiple sclerosis: clinical and radiological associations, present and future.

Keegan B, Absinta M, Cohen-Adad J, Flanagan E, Henry R, Klawiter E Brain Commun. 2024; 6(6):fcae395.

PMID: 39611182 PMC: 11604059. DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcae395.

Regional spinal cord volumes and pain profiles in AQP4-IgG + NMOSD and MOGAD.

Asseyer S, Zmira O, Busse L, Pflantzer B, Schindler P, Schmitz-Hubsch T Front Neurol. 2024; 15:1308498.

PMID: 38343712 PMC: 10853470. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1308498.

Pontomedullary junction as a reference for spinal cord cross-sectional area: validation across neck positions.

Bedard S, Bouthillier M, Cohen-Adad J Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):13527.

PMID: 37598229 PMC: 10439961. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40731-3.

Automatic measure and normalization of spinal cord cross-sectional area using the pontomedullary junction.

Bedard S, Cohen-Adad J Front Neuroimaging. 2023; 1:1031253.

PMID: 37555172 PMC: 10406309. DOI: 10.3389/fnimg.2022.1031253.

References

Valsasina P, Rocca M, Horsfield M, Absinta M, Messina R, Caputo D . Regional cervical cord atrophy and disability in multiple sclerosis: a voxel-based analysis. Radiology. 2012; 266(3):853-61. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120813. View

Kearney H, Yiannakas M, Abdel-Aziz K, Wheeler-Kingshott C, Altmann D, Ciccarelli O . Improved MRI quantification of spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 39(3):617-23. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24194. View

Martin A, De Leener B, Cohen-Adad J, Kalsi-Ryan S, Cadotte D, Wilson J . Monitoring for myelopathic progression with multiparametric quantitative MRI. PLoS One. 2018; 13(4):e0195733. PMC: 5903654. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195733. View

Martin A, De Leener B, Cohen-Adad J, Cadotte D, Kalsi-Ryan S, Lange S . Clinically Feasible Microstructural MRI to Quantify Cervical Spinal Cord Tissue Injury Using DTI, MT, and T2*-Weighted Imaging: Assessment of Normative Data and Reliability. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38(6):1257-1265. PMC: 7960088. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5163. View

Papinutto N, Schlaeger R, Panara V, Caverzasi E, Ahn S, Johnson K . 2D phase-sensitive inversion recovery imaging to measure in vivo spinal cord gray and white matter areas in clinically feasible acquisition times. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014; 42(3):698-708. PMC: 5953416. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24819. View

Castellano A, Papinutto N, Cadioli M, Brugnara G, Iadanza A, Scigliuolo G . Quantitative MRI of the spinal cord and brain in adrenomyeloneuropathy: in vivo assessment of structural changes. Brain. 2016; 139(Pt 6):1735-46. DOI: 10.1093/brain/aww068. View

Papinutto N, Bakshi R, Bischof A, Calabresi P, Caverzasi E, Constable R . Gradient nonlinearity effects on upper cervical spinal cord area measurement from 3D T -weighted brain MRI acquisitions. Magn Reson Med. 2017; 79(3):1595-1601. PMC: 6175276. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26776. View

De Leener B, Levy S, Dupont S, Fonov V, Stikov N, Collins D . SCT: Spinal Cord Toolbox, an open-source software for processing spinal cord MRI data. Neuroimage. 2016; 145(Pt A):24-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.009. View

Yiannakas M, Grussu F, Louka P, Prados F, Samson R, Battiston M . Reduced Field-of-View Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Lumbosacral Enlargement: A Pilot In Vivo Study of the Healthy Spinal Cord at 3T. PLoS One. 2016; 11(10):e0164890. PMC: 5065166. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164890. View

10.

Dupont S, De Leener B, Taso M, Le Troter A, Nadeau S, Stikov N . Fully-integrated framework for the segmentation and registration of the spinal cord white and gray matter. Neuroimage. 2016; 150:358-372. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.026. View

11.

Aymerich F, Auger C, Alonso J, Alberich M, Sastre-Garriga J, Tintore M . Cervical Cord Atrophy and Long-Term Disease Progression in Patients with Primary-Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 39(2):399-404. PMC: 7410598. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5495. View

12.

Horsfield M, Sala S, Neema M, Absinta M, Bakshi A, Sormani M . Rapid semi-automatic segmentation of the spinal cord from magnetic resonance images: application in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage. 2010; 50(2):446-55. PMC: 2830007. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.121. View

13.

Prados F, Ashburner J, Blaiotta C, Brosch T, Carballido-Gamio J, Cardoso M . Spinal cord grey matter segmentation challenge. Neuroimage. 2017; 152:312-329. PMC: 5440179. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.010. View

14.

Gringel T, Schulz-Schaeffer W, Elolf E, Frolich A, Dechent P, Helms G . Optimized high-resolution mapping of magnetization transfer (MT) at 3 Tesla for direct visualization of substructures of the human thalamus in clinically feasible measurement time. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009; 29(6):1285-92. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21756. View

15.

Yiannakas M, Kearney H, Samson R, Chard D, Ciccarelli O, Miller D . Feasibility of grey matter and white matter segmentation of the upper cervical cord in vivo: a pilot study with application to magnetisation transfer measurements. Neuroimage. 2012; 63(3):1054-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.048. View

16.

Rasoanandrianina H, Grapperon A, Taso M, Girard O, Duhamel G, Guye M . Region-specific impairment of the cervical spinal cord (SC) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A preliminary study using SC templates and quantitative MRI (diffusion tensor imaging/inhomogeneous magnetization transfer). NMR Biomed. 2017; 30(12). DOI: 10.1002/nbm.3801. View

17.

Kim G, Khalid F, Oommen V, Tauhid S, Chu R, Horsfield M . T1- vs. T2-based MRI measures of spinal cord volume in healthy subjects and patients with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2015; 15:124. PMC: 4521382. DOI: 10.1186/s12883-015-0387-0. View

18.

De Leener B, Taso M, Cohen-Adad J, Callot V . Segmentation of the human spinal cord. MAGMA. 2016; 29(2):125-53. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-015-0507-2. View

19.

Olney N, Bischof A, Rosen H, Caverzasi E, Stern W, Lomen-Hoerth C . Measurement of spinal cord atrophy using phase sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) imaging in motor neuron disease. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11):e0208255. PMC: 6264489. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208255. View

20.

Yiannakas M, Mustafa A, De Leener B, Kearney H, Tur C, Altmann D . Fully automated segmentation of the cervical cord from T1-weighted MRI using PropSeg: Application to multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage Clin. 2016; 10:71-7. PMC: 4678307. DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.11.001. View