» Articles » PMID: 35250457

Quantitative MR-Neurography at 3.0T: Inter-Scanner Reproducibility

Overview
Journal Front Neurosci
Date 2022 Mar 7
PMID 35250457
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Quantitative MR-neurography (MRN) is increasingly applied, however, the impact of the MR-scanner on the derived parameters is unknown. Here, we used different 3.0T MR scanners and applied comparable MR-sequences in order to quantify the inter-scanner reproducibility of various MRN parameters of the sciatic nerve.

Methods: Ten healthy volunteers were prospectively examined at three different 3.0T MR scanners and underwent MRN of their sciatic nerve using comparable imaging protocols including diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and T2 relaxometry. Subsequently, inter-scanner agreement was assessed for seven different parameters by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the standard error of measurement (SEM).

Results: Assessment of inter-scanner reliability revealed good to excellent agreement for T2 (ICC: 0.846) and the quantitative DTI parameters, such as fractional anisotropy (FA) (ICC: 0.876), whereas moderate agreement was observed for proton spin density (PD) (ICC: 0.51). Analysis of variance identified significant inter-scanner differences for several parameters, such as FA ( < 0.001; = 0.02), T2 ( < 0.01) and PD ( = 0.02; < 0.01; = 0.02). Calculated SEM values were mostly within the range of one standard deviation of the absolute mean values, for example 0.033 for FA, 4.12 ms for T2 and 27.8 for PD.

Conclusion: This study quantifies the measurement imprecision for peripheral nerve DTI and T2 relaxometry, which is associated with the use of different MR scanners. The here presented values may serve as an orientation of the possible scanner-associated fluctuations of MRN biomarkers, which can occur under similar conditions.

Citing Articles

Quantitative magnetic resonance neurography in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: A longitudinal study over 6 years.

Preisner F, Pitarokoili K, Lueling B, Motte J, Fisse A, Gruter T Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2023; 11(3):593-606.

PMID: 38111964 PMC: 10963304. DOI: 10.1002/acn3.51978.


Multiparametric Quantitative MRI of Peripheral Nerves in the Leg: A Reliability Study.

Chen Y, Baraz J, Xuan S, Yang X, Castoro R, Xuan Y J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023; 59(2):563-574.

PMID: 37191075 PMC: 11188919. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28778.

References
1.
Simon N, Lagopoulos J, Paling S, Pfluger C, Park S, Howells J . Peripheral nerve diffusion tensor imaging as a measure of disease progression in ALS. J Neurol. 2017; 264(5):882-890. DOI: 10.1007/s00415-017-8443-x. View

2.
Breitenseher J, Kranz G, Hold A, Berzaczy D, Nemec S, Sycha T . MR neurography of ulnar nerve entrapment at the cubital tunnel: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25(7):1911-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3613-7. View

3.
Fortanier E, Ogier A, Delmont E, Lefebvre M, Viout P, Guye M . Quantitative assessment of sciatic nerve changes in Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A patients using magnetic resonance neurography. Eur J Neurol. 2020; 27(8):1382-1389. DOI: 10.1111/ene.14303. View

4.
Bernabeu A, Lopez-Celada S, Alfaro A, Mas J, Sanchez-Gonzalez J . Is diffusion tensor imaging useful in the assessment of the sciatic nerve and its pathologies? Our clinical experience. Br J Radiol. 2016; 89(1066):20150728. PMC: 5124792. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150728. View

5.
Chhabra A, Madhuranthakam A, Andreisek G . Magnetic resonance neurography: current perspectives and literature review. Eur Radiol. 2017; 28(2):698-707. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4976-8. View