Longitudinal Comparison of Diffusion Imaging Modeling in Rat Spinal Cord Injury
Nathan P Skinner1,2,3, Sean D McGarry4, Shekar N Kurpad3,5, Brian D Schmit6, and Matthew D Budde3,5

1Biophysics Graduate Program, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 2Medical Scientist Training Program, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 3Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 4Neuroscience Doctoral Program, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 5Clement J. Zablocki Veteran's Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 6Department of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, United States

Synopsis

A rat model of graded spinal cord injury was used to evaluate several diffusion models for the ability to detect injury at acute and chronic time points. Parameters from diffusion tensor imaging, free water estimation, diffusion kurtosis imaging, and white matter tract integrity models demonstrated that higher order modeling showed better separation of injury severity, especially in the chronic time point. Furthermore, parameters sensitive to volume changes associated with edema and inflammation demonstrated the greatest separation of these injury groups, indicating the importance of these processes in altering diffusion characteristics in spinal cord injury.

Purpose

Diffusion weighted imaging is a powerful tool for investigating changes resulting from spinal cord injury (SCI). Many models have been derived to characterize the various tissue components present in the signal in order to more accurately identify injury processes. This work compares measurements of several of these models in an in-vivo model of rat spinal cord injury at multiple time points to demonstrate the ability of each to detect injury.

Methods

A weight drop spinal cord contusion injury was induced at the T10 vertebral level in rats for severe (n=4), moderate (n=3), mild (n=3), and sham (n=4) injuries. Two in-vivo scanning sessions occurred post-injury: 2 days (acute) and 30 days (chronic).

Standard PGSE diffusion weighted images were acquired using a Bruker 9.4T Biospec Imaging system with a commercial 4-channel surface coil array (Bruker). A respiratory-gated EPI sequence was used with a TR/TE of >1500 / 28 ms. 30 diffusion directions were acquired with a gradient duration/separation of 8.25 / 12.5 ms for 3 b-values (500, 1000, 2000 s/mm2) and 15 B0 averages. 12 axial slices were collected with an in-plane resolution of 0.20 mm2 (128x128) and a slice thickness of 1.0 mm, which took approximately 65 minutes to collect. A sagittal FLASH sequence was used to center the slices over the T10 injury epicenter.

Images were corrected for motion and eddy currents using the Spinal Cord Toolbox1. Custom Matlab routines were used for diffusion modeling. Standard Diffusion Tensor Imaging2 (DTI) analysis was used to derive metrics of mean diffusivity (MDDTI), axial diffusivity (ADDTI), radial diffusivity (RDDTI), and fractional anisotropy (FADTI). These metrics were further utilized with the Free Water Estimation3 (FWE) model to calculate corrected values of MDFWE, ADFWE, RDFWE, and FAFWE through removal of the free water fraction (FWF). Diffusion kurtosis fitting4 was implemented to calculate diffusivity parameters with corresponding values of mean, axial, and radial kurtosis. These were applied in the White Matter Tract Integrity5 (WMTI) model to determine the axonal water fraction (AWF), axonal diffusivity (Da), extracellular parallel diffusivity (DEpar), and extracellular perpendicular diffusivity (DEperp). Parameter means were taken from the 6 slices centered over the lesion epicenter using an automated, region-growing method in Matlab to derive whole-cord masks for each slice. Automated masks were examined for accuracy, with failed slices being excluded from the analysis (total of 8 slices out of 84).

Results

Representative parameter maps from each model are given in Figure 1. Means obtained from automated ROIs closely matched those from hand-drawn masks (not shown).

Figure 2 shows a comparison of axial and radial diffusivity metrics at the acute and chronic time points. While no trends with injury severity were evident in the acute period, chronic diffusivity values showed that ADFWE scales roughly with injury severity. This same trend was seen in Da from the WMTI model. On the other hand, RDDTI showed better separation of injury groups before FWE correction. DEperp from WMTI showed the strongest separation of injury groups.

FA measurements with FWE correction (Fig. 3) demonstrated better association with injury severity in both acute and chronic data. While an overall trend of increasing FWF is seen in the chronic data, AWF shows more consistency in its change with injury severity through both time points.

Discussion

Edema and inflammation are major factors in SCI that alter volume fractions within tissues and lead to diffusivity changes. Parameters such as RDDTI, and DEperp demonstrate increased diffusivity values in injury likely associated with the increased extracellular volume6. The decreased sensitivity of the RDFWE metric reflects the removal of the edema component that serves as an injury marker. Free water removal does improve separation of injury groups for AD and FA, but the more advanced WMTI model shows stronger relationships with injury severity in the metrics of Da, DEperp, and AWF. Thus while FWE can be used to improve DTI modeling, the kurtosis-based metrics demonstrate better potential for separating injury severity. This is especially true in the chronic time point, where inflammatory and glial responses to injury are more extensively developed following injury.

Conclusions

Detection of injury severity with diffusion metrics shows that more advanced kurtosis-based parameters can better separate injury groups in a rat model of SCI. Metrics related to increased extracellular water show the strongest relationship with injury severity, especially in the chronic period, demonstrating the importance of edema and inflammation in driving diffusion-sensitive changes following injury.

Acknowledgements

This project was partially funded through the Research and Education Initiative Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin, the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. NS is a member of the Medical Scientist Training Program at MCW, which is partially supported by a training grant from NIGMS T32-GM080202. Support from the Bryon Riesch Paralysis Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Kyle Stehlik and Natasha Beucher for experimental assistance.

References

1. Cohen-Adad et al. OHBM Conf Proc 2014.

2. Basser et al. J MRI B 1994.

3. Pasternak et al. Magn Reson Med 2009.

4. Jensen et al. NMR Biomed 2010.

5. Fieremans et al. Am J Neuroradiol 2013.

6. Skinner et al. NMR Biomed 2015.

Figures

Figure 1. Representative parameter maps for mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), radial diffusivity (RD), fractional anisotropy (FA), free water fraction (FWF), mean kurtosis (MK), axial kurtosis (AK), radial kurtosis (RK), axonal water fraction (AWF), axonal diffusivity (Da), parallel extracellular diffusivity (DEpar), and perpendicular extracellular diffusivity (DEperp).

Figure 2. Acute (A) and chronic (B) diffusivity measurements for axial and radial diffusivities from DTI (ADDTI and RDDTI) and FWE corrections (ADFWE, and RDFWE). WMTI values of axonal diffusivity (Da) and extracellular perpendicular diffusivity (DEperp) are also shown. Error bars represent standard deviation.

Figure 3. Acute (A) and chronic (B) fractional anisotropy measurements from DTI (FADTI) and FWE corrections (FAFWE). Comparison of free water fraction (FWF) from FWE and axonal water fraction (AWF) from WMTI are also shown. Error bars represent standard deviation.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
3078