Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4488–4495 | Cite as

Reliable and fast volumetry of the lumbar spinal cord using cord image analyser (Cordial)

  • Charidimos Tsagkas
  • Anna Altermatt
  • Ulrike Bonati
  • Simon Pezold
  • Julia Reinhard
  • Michael Amann
  • Philippe Cattin
  • Jens Wuerfel
  • Dirk Fischer
  • Katrin Parmar
  • Arne Fischmann
Magnetic Resonance
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To validate the precision and accuracy of the semi-automated cord image analyser (Cordial) for lumbar spinal cord (SC) volumetry in 3D T1w MRI data of healthy controls (HC).

Materials and methods

40 3D T1w images of 10 HC (w/m: 6/4; age range: 18–41 years) were acquired at one 3T-scanner in two MRI sessions (time interval 14.9±6.1 days). Each subject was scanned twice per session, allowing determination of test-retest reliability both in back-to-back (intra-session) and scan-rescan images (inter-session). Cordial was applied for lumbar cord segmentation twice per image by two raters, allowing for assessment of intra- and inter-rater reliability, and compared to a manual gold standard.

Results

While manually segmented volumes were larger (mean: 2028±245 mm3 vs. Cordial: 1636±300 mm3, p<0.001), accuracy assessments between manually and semi-automatically segmented images showed a mean Dice-coefficient of 0.88±0.05. Calculation of within-subject coefficients of variation (COV) demonstrated high intra-session (1.22–1.86%), inter-session (1.26–1.84%), as well as intra-rater (1.73–1.83%) reproducibility. No significant difference was shown between intra- and inter-session reproducibility or between intra-rater reliabilities. Although inter-rater reproducibility (COV: 2.87%) was slightly lower compared to all other reproducibility measures, between rater consistency was very strong (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.974).

Conclusion

While under-estimating the lumbar SCV, Cordial still provides excellent inter- and intra-session reproducibility showing high potential for application in longitudinal trials.

Key Points

Lumbar spinal cord segmentation using the semi-automated cord image analyser (Cordial) is feasible.

Lumbar spinal cord is 40-mm cord segment 60 mm above conus medullaris.

Cordial provides excellent inter- and intra-session reproducibility in lumbar spinal cord region.

Cordial shows high potential for application in longitudinal trials.

Keywords

Spinal cord Volumetry Semi-automated segmentation Magnetic resonance imaging Imaging biomarker 

Abbreviations

CNS

Central nervous system

COV

Coefficient of variation

CSF

Cerebrospinal fluid

FOV

Field-of-view

HC

Healthy controls

ICC

Intra-class correlation coefficient

MPRAGE

Magnetisation-prepared rapid gradient-echo

SC

Spinal cord

SCV

Spinal cord volume

SD

Standard deviation

TE

Echo time

TR

Repetition time

VIBE

Volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Tanja Haas and Pascal Kuster for MRI data acquisition and data management. Most of all, we are grateful to the healthy controls for participating in the study. Data acquisition was funded by F. Hoffman La Roche. F. Hoffman La Roche did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report and decision to submit the paper for publication.

Funding

Data acquisition was funded by F. Hoffman La Roche. F. Hoffman La Roche did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report and decision to submit the paper for publication.

KP holds a personal grant of the Baasch Medicus Foundation Switzerland.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is PD Dr. Katrin Parmar.

Conflict of interest

C.T., A.A., U.B., S.P., J.R., M.A., P.C. and D.F. declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

J.W. is CEO of MIAC AG Basel. Unrelated to this work he received grants from the German Ministry of Science (BMBF), the German Ministery of Economy (BMWI), the EU (Horizon2020) and compensation for talks and advisory boards from Actelion, Bayer, Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Roche.

K.P. received travel support from Novartis Switzerland unrelated to this work.

A.F. reports travel support from Bracco Switzerland unrelated to this work.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• method validation

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Kearney H, Miller DH, Ciccarelli O (2015) Spinal cord MRI in multiple sclerosis—diagnostic, prognostic and clinical value. Nat Rev Neurol 11:327–338.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.80 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Han J, Kaufman B, El Yousef S et al (1983) NMR imaging of the spine. Am J Roentgenol 141:1137–1145.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.141.6.1137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Modic MT, Weinstein MA, Pavlicek W et al (1983) Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the spine. Radiology 148:757–762.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878697 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman D, Mills C, Brant-Zawadzki M et al (1983) Magnetic resonance imaging of the spinal cord and canal: potentials and limitations. Am J Roentgenol 141:1147–1152.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.141.6.1147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coulon O, Hickman SJ, Parker GJ et al (2002) Quantification of spinal cord atrophy from magnetic resonance images via a B-spline active surface model. Magn Reson Med 47:1176–1185.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.10162 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickman SJ, Hadjiprocopis A, Coulon O et al (2004) Cervical spinal cord MTR histogram analysis in multiple sclerosis using a 3D acquisition and a B-spline active surface segmentation technique. Magn Reson Imaging 22:891–895.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2004.01.056 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horsfield MA, Sala S, Neema M et al (2010) Rapid semi-automatic segmentation of the spinal cord from magnetic resonance images: application in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 50:446–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.121 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mukherjee DP, Cheng I, Ray N et al (2010) Automatic Segmentation of spinal cord MRI using symmetric boundary tracing. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 14:1275–1278.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2010.2052060 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Uitert R, Bitter I, Butman JA (2005) Semi-automatic spinal cord segmentation and quantification. Int Congr Ser 1281:224–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.03.181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carbonell-Caballero J, Manjón JV, Martí-Bonmatí L et al (2006) Accurate quantification methods to evaluate cervical cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis patients. MAGMA 19:237–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-006-0052-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koh J, Kim T, Chaudhary V, Dhillon G (2010) Automatic segmentation of the spinal cord and the dural sac in lumbar MR images using gradient vector flow field. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010:3117–3120.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen M, Carass A, Oh J et al (2013) Automatic magnetic resonance spinal cord segmentation with topology constraints for variable fields of view. Neuroimage 83:1051–1062.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.060 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fonov VS, Le Troter A, Taso M et al (2014) Framework for integrated MRI average of the spinal cord white and gray matter: the MNI–Poly–AMU template. Neuroimage 102(Part 2):817–827.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.08.057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leener BD, Cohen-Adad J, Kadoury S (2015) Automatic segmentation of the spinal cord and spinal canal coupled with vertebral labeling. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:1705–1718.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2015.2437192 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amann M, Pezold S, Naegelin Y et al (2016) Reliable volumetry of the cervical spinal cord in MS patient follow-up data with cord image analyzer (Cordial). J Neurol 263:1364–1374.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-016-8133-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pezold S, Ammann M, Weier K, et al (2014) A semi-automatic method for the quantification of spinal cord atrophy. In: computational methods and clinical applications for spine imaging: proceedings of the Workshop held at the 16th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, September 22-26, 2013, Nagoya, Japan. Springer, Cham, p 143–155Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pezold S, Fundana K, Amann M, et al (2015) Automatic segmentation of the spinal cord using continuous max flow with cross-sectional similarity prior and tubularity features. 107–118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14148-0_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pezold S, Horváth A, Fundana K, et al (2016) Automatic, robust, and globally optimal segmentation of tubular structures. In: medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention -- MICCAI 2016. Springer, Cham, p 362–370Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Papinutto N, Schlaeger R, Panara V et al (2015) Age, gender and normalization covariates for spinal cord gray matter and total cross-sectional areas at cervical and thoracic levels: a 2D phase sensitive inversion recovery imaging study. PLoS One 10:e0118576.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118576 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stroman PW, Wheeler-Kingshott C, Bacon M et al (2014) The current state-of-the-art of spinal cord imaging: methods. Neuroimage 84:1070–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.124 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Stroman PW, Schwab JM et al (2014) The current state-of-the-art of spinal cord imaging: applications. Neuroimage 84:1082–1093.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yiannakas MC, Kakar P, Hoy LR et al (2014) The use of the lumbosacral enlargement as an intrinsic imaging biomarker: feasibility of grey matter and white matter cross-sectional area measurements using MRI at 3T. PLoS One 9:e105544.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105544 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ge Y, Grossman RI, Babb JS et al (2002) Age-related total gray matter and white matter changes in normal adult brain. Part I: volumetric MR imaging analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 23:1327–1333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terribilli D, Schaufelberger MS, Duran FLS et al (2011) Age-related gray matter volume changes in the brain during non-elderly adulthood. Neurobiol Aging 32:354–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.02 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charidimos Tsagkas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Altermatt
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ulrike Bonati
    • 4
  • Simon Pezold
    • 3
  • Julia Reinhard
    • 5
  • Michael Amann
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Philippe Cattin
    • 3
  • Jens Wuerfel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dirk Fischer
    • 4
  • Katrin Parmar
    • 1
  • Arne Fischmann
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Medical Image Analysis Center (MIAC AG), BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Center for medical Image Analysis & Navigation (CIAN), Department of BioengineeringUniversity BaselAllschwilSwitzerland
  4. 4.Division of NeuropediatricsUniversity of Basel Children’s HospitalBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  6. 6.Division of NeuroradiologyHirslanden Klinik St. AnnaLuzernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations