European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1450–1458 | Cite as

Imaging of the entire cerebrospinal fluid volume with a multistation 3D SPACE MR sequence: feasibility study in patients with hydrocephalus

  • Jérôme Hodel
  • Alain Lebret
  • Eric Petit
  • Xavier Leclerc
  • Marc Zins
  • Alexandre Vignaud
  • Philippe Decq
  • Alain Rahmouni
Neuro

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the feasibility of imaging the entire cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) volume using the SPACE MR sequence.

Methods

The SPACE sequence encompassing the brain and spine was performed at 1.5 T in 12 healthy volunteers and 26 consecutive patients with hydrocephalus. Image contrast was estimated using difference ratios in signal intensity between CSF and its background. Segmentation of CSF was performed using geometrical features and a topological assumption of CSF shapes. Subarachnoid and ventricular CSF space volumes were assessed in volunteers and patients and linear discriminant analysis was performed.

Results

Image contrast was 0.94 between the CSF and the brain and 0.90 between the CSF and the spinal cord. According to the phantom study, the accuracy of CSF volume measurement was 98.5 %. A clear distinction between patients and healthy volunteers was obtained using the linear discriminant analysis. Significant linear regression was found in healthy volunteers between ventricular (Vv) and the whole subarachnoid CSF volume (Vs) with Vv = 0.083 Vs.

Conclusions

Imaging of the entire CSF volume is feasible in healthy volunteers and patients with hydrocephalus. CSF volume can be obtained on a whole-body scale. This approach may be of use for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with hydrocephalus.

Key Points

MRI assessment of CSF volume is feasible in healthy volunteers/hydrocephalus patients.

CSF volume can be obtained on a whole-body scale.

The ratio of subarachnoid and ventricular CSF is constant in healthy volunteers.

CSF linear discriminant analysis can distinguish between patients and healthy volunteers.

Entire CSF volume imaging is useful for diagnosing and following hydrocephalus.

Keywords

Cerebrospinal fluid Hydrocephalus Magnetic resonance imaging Whole body imaging SPACE MR sequence 

Abbreviations and acronyms

CSF

Cerebrospinal fluid

NCH

Non-communicating hydrocephalus

CH

Communicating hydrocephalus

SPACE

Sampling perfection with application optimised contrast using different flip-angle evolution

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Iwona M’Kenzie Hall for her editorial assistance.

Alexandre Vignaud is an employee of Siemens.

References

  1. 1.
    Blatter DD, Bigler ED, Gale SD et al (1997) MR-based brain and cerebrospinal fluid measurement after traumatic brain injury: correlation with neuropsychological outcome. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 18:1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kazan-Tannus JF, Dialani V, Kataoka ML et al (2007) MR volumetry of brain and CSF in fetuses referred for ventriculomegaly. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:145–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kitagaki H, Mori E, Ishii K et al (1998) CSF spaces in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: morphology and volumetry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 19:1277–1284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lemieux L, Hammers A, Mackinnon T et al (2003) Automatic segmentation of the brain and intracranial cerebrospinal fluid in T1-weighted volume MRI scans of the head, and its application to serial cerebral and intracranial volumetry. Magn Reson Med 49:872–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Courchesne E, Chisum HJ, Townsend J et al (2000) Normal brain development and aging: quantitative analysis at in vivo MR imaging in healthy volunteers. Radiology 216:672–682PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lichy MP, Wietek BM, Mugler JP et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the body trunk using a single-slab, 3-dimensional, T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo sequence with high sampling efficiency (SPACE) for high spatial resolution imaging: initial clinical experiences. Invest Radiol 40:754–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meindl T, Wirth S, Weckbach S et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine: comparison of 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo, 2D T2*weighted gradient-recalled echo and 3D T2-weighted variable flip-angle turbo spin echo sequences. Eur Radiol 19:713–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumert B, Wortler K, Steffinger D et al (2009) Assessment of the internal craniocervical ligaments with a new magnetic resonance imaging sequence: three-dimensional turbo spin echo with variable flip-angle distribution (SPACE). Magn Reson Imaging 27:954–960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodel J, Silvera J, Bekaert O et al (2011) Intracranial cerebrospinal fluid spaces imaging using a pulse-triggered three-dimensional turbo spin echo MR sequence with variable flip-angle distribution. Eur Radiol 21:402–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K et al (2009) Patients with plasma cell disorders examined at whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial experience. Radiology 250:905–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y et al (2008) Non-small cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment–utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 248:643–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Punwani S, Taylor SA, Bainbridge A et al (2010) Pediatric and adolescent lymphoma: comparison of whole-body STIR half-Fourier RARE MR imaging with an enhanced PET/CT reference for initial staging. Radiology 255:182–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin C, Luciani A, Itti E et al (2010) Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for staging patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 20:2027–2038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Machann J, Thamer C, Stefan N et al (2010) Follow-up whole-body assessment of adipose tissue compartments during a lifestyle intervention in a large cohort at increased risk for type 2 diabetes. Radiology 257:353–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee RR, Abraham RA, Quinn CB (2001) Dynamic physiologic changes in lumbar CSF volume quantitatively measured by three-dimensional fast spin-echo MRI. Spine 26:1172–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Relkin N, Marmarou A, Klinge P et al (2005) Diagnosing idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 57:4–16Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB et al (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Neil J, Kong X et al (2010) Prostate cancer: Comparison of 3D T2-weighted with conventional 2D T2-weighted imaging for image quality and tumor detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:446–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Segonne F (2005) Segmentation of Medical Images under Topological Constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, USA.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lebret A, Petit E, Durning B et al (2012) Quantification of the cerebrospinal fluid from a new whole body MRI sequence. Medical Imaging: Computer-Aided Diagnosis. doi:10.1117/12.906964
  21. 21.
    Klette R, Rosenfeld A (2004) Digital geometry: geometric methods for digital picture analysis. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tsai W (1985) Moment-preserving thresholding: a new approach. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 29:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frangi A, Niessen W, Vincken K et al (1998) Multiscale vessel enhancement filtering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1496:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vincent L (1993) Morphological grayscale reconstruction in image analysis: applications and efficient algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2:176–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duda R, Hart P, Stork D (2000) Pattern Classification. 2nd edn. Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Melhem ER (2000) Technical challenges in MR imaging of the cervical spine and cord. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 8:435–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coffey CE, Lucke JF, Saxton JA et al (1998) Sex differences in brain aging: a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study. Arch Neurol 55:169–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pfefferbaum A, Mathalon DH, Sullivan EV et al (1994) A quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study of changes in brain morphology from infancy to late adulthood. Arch Neurol 51:874–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lloyd KM, DelGaudio JM, Hudgins PA (2008) Imaging of skull base cerebrospinal fluid leaks in adults. Radiology 248:725–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kellman P, McVeigh ER (2005) Image reconstruction in SNR units: a general method for SNR measurement. Magn Reson Med 54:1439–1447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Hodel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Alain Lebret
    • 4
  • Eric Petit
    • 4
  • Xavier Leclerc
    • 2
  • Marc Zins
    • 3
  • Alexandre Vignaud
    • 5
  • Philippe Decq
    • 6
  • Alain Rahmouni
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyHôpital Henri MondorCréteilFrance
  2. 2.Department of NeuroradiologyHôpital Roger SalengroLilleFrance
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyHôpital Saint JosephParisFrance
  4. 4.Laboratoire Images Signaux et Systèmes IntelligentsUniversité Paris XIICréteilFrance
  5. 5.Siemens HealthcareSaint DenisFrance
  6. 6.Department of NeurosurgeryHôpital Henri MondorCréteilFrance
  7. 7.Department of RadiologyHôpital Henri MondorCréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations