Lisa A. van der Kleij1, Jeroen de Bresser1, Esben T. Petersen2, Jeroen Hendrikse1, and Jill B. De Vis1
1Department of Radiology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
Synopsis
We
recently introduced a CSF MRI sequence to automatically
measure intracranial volume (ICV) and brain parenchymal volume (BPV). This
sequence with short imaging time (0:57 min) and fast post processing correlates well with qualitative brain atrophy scores. This
study demonstrates that the low resolution and high resolution CSF MRI sequences perform well in the
assessment of BPV and ICV, with a precision similar to the conventional brain
segmentation methods FSL, Freesurfer and SPM. The CSF MRI sequence showed a good to very good correlation with the conventional segmentation methods for ICV and BPV. Background
We recently introduced a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) MRI sequence to
automatically measure intracranial volume (ICV) and brain parenchymal volume
(BPV)
1. This sequence with short imaging time (0:57 min) and fast post
processing was shown to correlate well with qualitative brain atrophy scores,
which suggests that it could be used in clinical practice as a fast quantitative
approach to determine brain atrophy. However, the exact performance of the CSF
MRI sequence should still be compared to the conventional quantitative
segmentation methods. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to validate the
CSF MRI sequence in quantifying intracranial volume (ICV) and brain parenchymal
volume (BPV). First, the precision of two implementations of the CSF MRI sequence
(low and high resolution) was determined. Subsequently, a cross-validation of the
CSF MRI sequence was performed by comparison of the measurements with other
commonly used brain segmentation methods.
Methods
For this study ten healthy volunteers (2 females) with a median age of
28 (range 24-41) were included. The scan protocol (3T MRI, Philips) was
repeated twice, in between both scan sessions the participants were repositioned.
The scan protocol included a 3D T1-weighted sequence (matrix
256x256, FOV 232x256x192, TR = 8187ms, TE= 4.5ms, scan time 6:47 min) and a
low and high resolution CSF MRI sequence.
The CSF MRI sequence relies on the long transverse relaxation rate of
the CSF (T2,csf) to obtain volumetric CSF measurements which are then
used to measure ICV and calculate BPV. To enable this, an MLEV T2
preparation scheme is used which allows for the calculation of the T2
in each voxel by measuring the T2 decay (figure 1). For this a τCPMG
of 70ms and 0, 4, 8 and 16 refocusing pulses creating effective TEs of
0, 280, 560, and 1120 are used. Next, by comparing the signal in a voxel to the
signal in a pure ventricular CSF voxel, the partial volume of CSF within each
voxel can be estimated from which the CSF volume can be derived. The scan
parameters of the low resolution CSF MRI sequence were: voxel size 3x3x7 mm3,
TR 5208 ms, scan time 0:57 min1,2; and of the high resolution CSF MRI sequence:
voxel size 1x1x3.5 mm3, TR 6266 ms, scan time 3:21 min.
The 3D T1-weighted images were used for brain segmentation by
Freesurfer(5.3.0), SPM(12) and FSL(5.0). In FSL, the f-parameter for the brain extraction tool was set to 0.2. For
Freesurfer and SPM standard parameter settings were used.
Statistical analysis was carried out with R (R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Results
There was no significant difference between the brain volume of the
first and second scan for every method (Wilcoxon signed-rank). Whereas the mean
brain volumes with the CSF LR, FSL, SPM and Freesurfer were in the range of 1164
– 1265 cc, the highest mean brain volume obtained with the CSF HR was 1430 cc
(table 1).
The precision of the CSF HR was better than the precision of the CSF LR
for ICV and BPV (table 1). The precision for the ICV (CSF LR and HR) and BPV
(CSF HR) was in the range of the segmentation methods. The precision of the CSF
LR for the BPV was outside the range of the segmentation methods with a mean
absolute difference of about 10-15 cc higher than the other methods. The lower
precision of the CSF LR can be explained by two outliers; see subjects 1 and 5
in figure 2. However, no deviating results for ICV were found in these subjects
(figure 3). No motion was detected upon visual inspection in these two subjects.
Both the CSF LR and CSF HR measurements showed a good to very good correlation
with the other segmentation methods for ICV and BPV (see table 2). Overall, the
HR CSF sequence correlated better than the LR CSF measure with SPM, Freesurfer
and FSL. This difference can again be explained by the two outliers of the LR
CSF sequence. The correlation between the CSF MRI sequences and the segmentation
methods was overall lower for ICV than for BPV.
Conclusion
This
study demonstrates that the LR and HR CSF MRI sequences perform well in the
assessment of BPV and ICV with a precision similar to conventional brain
segmentation methods. The CSF MRI sequence provides quantitative BPV and ICV
measurements in a very short imaging time of less than a minute
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. De Vis JB;
EurRadiol 2015.
2.
Qin Q;
MagnReson Med 2011.