Advertisement

Neuroradiology

, Volume 61, Issue 11, pp 1219–1227 | Cite as

Brain tissue and myelin volumetric analysis in multiple sclerosis at 3T MRI with various in-plane resolutions using synthetic MRI

  • Laetitia Saccenti
  • Christina Andica
  • Akifumi HagiwaraEmail author
  • Kazumasa Yokoyama
  • Mariko Yoshida Takemura
  • Shohei Fujita
  • Tomoko Maekawa
  • Koji Kamagata
  • Alice Le Berre
  • Masaaki Hori
  • Nobutaka Hattori
  • Shigeki Aoki
Diagnostic Neuroradiology

Abstract

Purpose

Synthetic MRI (SyMRI) enables automatic brain tissue and myelin volumetry based on the quantification of R1 and R2 relaxation rates and proton density. This study aimed to determine the validity of SyMRI brain tissue and myelin volumetry using various in-plane resolutions at 3T in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

We scanned 19 MS patients and 10 healthy age- and gender-matched controls using a 3T MR scanner with in-plane resolutions of 0.8, 1.8, and 3.6 mm. The acquisition times were 5 min 8 s, 2 min 52 s, and 2 min 1 s, respectively. White matter (WM), gray matter (GM), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and myelin and non-WM/GM/CSF (NoN) volumes; brain parenchymal volume (BPV); and intracranial volume (ICV) were compared between different in-plane resolutions. These parameters were also compared between both groups, after ICV normalization.

Results

No significant differences in measured volumes were noted between the 0.8 and 1.8 mm in-plane resolutions, except in NoN and CSF for healthy controls and NoN for MS patients. Meanwhile, significant volumetric differences were noted in most brain tissues when compared between the 3.6 and 0.8 or 1.8 mm resolution for both healthy controls and MS patients. The normalized WM volume, myelin volume, and BPV showed significant differences between controls and MS patients at in-plane resolutions of 0.8 and 1.8 mm.

Conclusions

SyMRI brain tissue and myelin volumetry with in-plane resolution as low as 1.8 mm can be useful in the evaluation of MS with a short acquisition time of < 3 min.

Keywords

Quantitative MRI Synthetic MRI In-plane resolution Automated brain tissue volumetry Myelin measurement Multiple sclerosis 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (Grant nos. 16K19852 and 16K10327); by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas, resource, and technical support platforms for promoting research “Advanced Bioimaging Support” (Grant no. JP16H06280); by the Japanese Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; by the program for Brain Mapping by Integrated Neurotechnologies for Disease Studies (Brain/MINDS) from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED); by the AMED under grant number JP18lk1010025; and by the MEXT-Supported Program for the Private University Research Branding Project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in reports involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before evaluation.

References

  1. 1.
    Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, Clanet M, Cohen JA, Filippi M, Fujihara K, Havrdova E, Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Lublin FD, Montalban X, O'Connor P, Sandberg-Wollheim M, Thompson AJ, Waubant E, Weinshenker B, Wolinsky JS (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69(2):292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mollison D, Sellar R, Bastin M, Mollison D, Chandran S, Wardlaw J, Connick P (2017) The clinico-radiological paradox of cognitive function and MRI burden of white matter lesions in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 12(5):e0177727.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177727 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazeron RH, de Sonneville LM, Scheltens P, Polman CH, Barkhof F (2006) Cognitive slowing in multiple sclerosis is strongly associated with brain volume reduction. Mult Scler 12(6):760–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rocca MA, Battaglini M, Benedict RH, De Stefano N, Geurts JJ, Henry RG, Horsfield MA, Jenkinson M, Pagani E, Filippi M (2017) Brain MRI atrophy quantification in MS: from methods to clinical application. Neurology 88(4):403–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    West J, Blystad I, Engstrom M, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2013) Application of quantitative MRI for brain tissue segmentation at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths. PLoS One 8(9):e74795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hagiwara A, Hori M, Cohen-Adad J, Nakazawa M, Suzuki Y, Kasahara A, Horita M, Haruyama T, Andica C, Maekawa T, Kamagata K, Kumamaru KK, Abe O, Aoki S (2019) Linearity, bias, intrascanner repeatability, and interscanner reproducibility of quantitative multidynamic multiecho sequence for rapid simultaneous relaxometry at 3 T: a validation study with a standardized phantom and healthy controls. Investig Radiol 54:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krauss W, Gunnarsson M, Andersson T, Thunberg P (2015) Accuracy and reproducibility of a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging method for concurrent measurements of tissue relaxation times and proton density. Magn Reson Imaging 33(5):584–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    West J, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2012) Novel whole brain segmentation and volume estimation using quantitative MRI. Eur Radiol 22(5):998–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warntjes M, Engstrom M, Tisell A, Lundberg P (2016) Modeling the presence of myelin and edema in the brain based on multi-parametric quantitative MRI. Front Neurol 7:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andica C, Hagiwara A, Hori M, Nakazawa M, Goto M, Koshino S, Kamagata K, Kumamaru KK, Aoki S (2018) Automated brain tissue and myelin volumetry based on quantitative MR imaging with various in-plane resolutions. J Neuroradiol 45(3):164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hagiwara A, Hori M, Yokoyama K, Takemura MY, Andica C, Kumamaru KK, Nakazawa M, Takano N, Kawasaki H, Sato S, Hamasaki N, Kunimatsu A, Aoki S (2017) Utility of a multiparametric quantitative MRI model that assesses myelin and edema for evaluating plaques, periplaque white matter, and normal-appearing white matter in patients with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38(2):237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wallaert L, Hagiwara A, Andica C, Hori M, Yamashiro K, Koshino S, Maekawa T, Kamagata K, Aoki S (2018) The advantage of synthetic MRI for the visualization of anterior temporal pole lesions on double inversion recovery (DIR), phase-sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR), and myelin images in a patient with CADASIL. Magn Reson Med Sci 17(4):275-276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vagberg M, Lindqvist T, Ambarki K, Warntjes JB, Sundstrom P, Birgander R, Svenningsson A (2013) Automated determination of brain parenchymal fraction in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34(3):498–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Traboulsee A, Simon JH, Stone L, Fisher E, Jones DE, Malhotra A, Newsome SD, Oh J, Reich DS, Richert N, Rammohan K, Khan O, Radue EW, Ford C, Halper J, Li D (2016) Revised recommendations of the consortium of MS centers task force for a standardized MRI protocol and clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and follow-up of multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37(3):394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanda Y (2013) Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48(3):452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chu R, Tauhid S, Glanz BI, Healy BC, Kim G, Oommen VV, Khalid F, Neema M, Bakshi R (2016) Whole brain volume measured from 1.5T versus 3T MRI in healthy subjects and patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 26(1):62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bermel RA, Bakshi R (2006) The measurement and clinical relevance of brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 5(2):158–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    King EM, Sabatier MJ, Hoque M, Kesar TM, Backus D, Borich MR (2018) Myelin status is associated with change in functional mobility following slope walking in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 4(2):2055217318773540PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Warntjes JBM, Persson A, Berge J, Zech W (2017) Myelin detection using rapid quantitative MR imaging correlated to macroscopically registered Luxol fast blue-stained brain specimens. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38(6):1096–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hagiwara A, Hori M, Kamagata K, Warntjes M, Matsuyoshi D, Nakazawa M, Ueda R, Andica C, Koshino S, Maekawa T, Irie R, Takamura T, Kumamaru KK, Abe O, Aoki S (2018) Myelin measurement: comparison between simultaneous tissue Relaxometry, magnetization transfer saturation index, and T1w/T2w ratio methods. Sci Rep 8(1):10554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashburner J, Friston KJ (2000) Voxel-based morphometry—the methods. NeuroImage 11(6 pt 1):805–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wonderlick JS, Ziegler DA, Hosseini-Varnamkhasti P, Locascio JJ, Bakkour A, van der Kouwe A, Triantafyllou C, Corkin S, Dickerson BC (2009) Reliability of MRI-derived cortical and subcortical morphometric measures: effects of pulse sequence, voxel geometry, and parallel imaging. NeuroImage 44(4):1324–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fujita S, Hagiwara A, Hori M, Warntjles M, Kamagata K, Fukunaga I, Goto M, Takuya H, Takasu K, Andica C, Maekawa T, Takemura MY, Irie R, Wada A, Suzuki M, Aoki S (2019) 3D quantitative synthetic MRI-derived cortical thickness and subcortical brain volumes: scan-rescan repeatability and comparison with conventional T1-weighted images. J Magn Reson Imaging [Epub ahead of print].  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26744
  24. 24.
    Vågberg M, Ambarki K, Lindqvist T, Birgander R, Svenningsson A (2016) Brain parenchymal fraction in an age-stratified healthy population – determined by MRI using manual segmentation and three automated segmentation methods. J Neuroradiol 43(6):384–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bonar DC, Schaper KA, Anderson JR, Rottenberg DA, Strother SC (1993) Graphical analysis of MR feature space for measurement of CSF, gray-matter, and white-matter volumes. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17(3):461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Granberg T, Uppman M, Hashim F, Cananau C, Nordin LE, Shams S, Berglund J, Forslin Y, Aspelin P, Fredrikson S, Kristoffersen-Wiberg M (2016) Clinical feasibility of synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37(6):1023–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laetitia Saccenti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christina Andica
    • 1
  • Akifumi Hagiwara
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Kazumasa Yokoyama
    • 4
  • Mariko Yoshida Takemura
    • 1
  • Shohei Fujita
    • 1
    • 3
  • Tomoko Maekawa
    • 1
    • 3
  • Koji Kamagata
    • 1
  • Alice Le Berre
    • 1
    • 2
  • Masaaki Hori
    • 1
  • Nobutaka Hattori
    • 4
  • Shigeki Aoki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyJuntendo University Graduate School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversité Paris DescartesParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyThe University of Tokyo Graduate School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of NeurologyJuntendo University School of MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations