Nina Linde Højland Reislev1,2, Henrik Lundell1, Hartwig Roman Siebner1,3, Christian Eriksen2,4, Michael Kjær2,4, and Ellen Garde2,5
1Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark, 2Center for Healthy Aging, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4Institute for Sports Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark, 5Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Synopsis
This study presents
a new method to differentiate brain white matter hyperintensity (WMH) severity using
conventional T1-weighted and T2-weighted MRI. By combining normalized image intensity,
heterogeneous tissue properties within lesions are revealed. Lesion severity is
quantified through two distance measures of parallel and perpendicular
deviation from normal appearing white matter. Correlations with diffusion
imaging based measures suggest that multi-modal voxel-based lesion analysis
provide comparable but high-resolution tissue information. Based on
conventional MRI scans this method adds valuable insight into the differentiated
impact of WMH lesions on brain structure and function.
Introduction
As an important MRI marker of brain small vessel
disease white matter hyperintensities (WMH) have been associated with vascular
risk factors and cognitive decline (1, 2). WMH have traditionally been assessed
with visual rating scales (3,4) or volumetrically quantified with a variety of automatic
segmentation methods (for review see 5). A multimodal approach based on combined
intensity information from FLAIR, T2w, and T1w may provide a better marker of
tissue degeneration and a quantitative measure of WMH severity leading to a greater
understanding of the neurobiological impact of WMH on brain function and
cognition.Methods
Subjects:
257 subjects were included in the study, as a subset
randomly selected from a larger community-based cohort (age 62-70 years) of the
LISA study (6).
Data:
Conventional structural 3D T1w (MPRAGE), T2w, and
FLAIR whole-brain images were acquired on a Philips 3T MRI scanner. Whole-brain
diffusion-weighted images (DWI) were additionally acquired.
Analyses:
WMH were delineated by simultaneous visual assessment of FLAIR and T2w images
using JIM 6.0 (Xinapse Systems) resulting in a total of 8845 lesions. Grey and
white matter were segmented on lesion-filled T1w images (7), to identify normal
appearing white matter (NAWM). For each modality (T1w, T2w, and FLAIR), mean intensity
within lesions was normalized to mean NAWM intensity within each subject. On a
voxel-wise basis, a singular value decomposition was used to project all voxels
within all lesions across all subjects into the 3D parameter space of
normalized T1w, T2w, and FLAIR intensities. To describe how each voxel
intensity within lesions deviated from NAWM, two distance measures were
defined: 1) Parallel distance along the primary eigenvector, and 2) Perpendicular
distance from the primary eigenvector. The DWIs were processed within each
subject using FSL tools (8), and the diffusion tensor model was fitted to
create fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) maps, which were used
to validate the distance measures, assuming a more severe lesion is roughly
characterized by increased MD and decreased FA (9). On subject level, all
lesion maps for all subjects were normalized through the T1w images with SPM
DARTEL tool (10) into 1 mm MNI space, and a lesion frequency map was created. Results
The lesion frequency map of all lesions across all
subjects shows a typical spatial distribution of WMH as can be expected in an
elderly subject group (Fig. 1). Zooming in on a particular lesion of one
subject on the T1w, T2w, and FLAIR images visualize the heterogeneous intensities
within a WMH (Fig 2B). This intensity heterogeneity is further stated in the 3D
visualization of NAWM-normalized T1w, T2w, and FLAIR lesion values. This suggests
a nonlinear trajectory through this parameter space reflecting the diverse
neuropathology from NAWM to the state of a particular lesion (Fig. 2C). By combining
the two distance measures and examining the points with a high distance value of
all lesions, deviation from a linear evolution within lesions can be quantified
(Fig. 3), hence the outermost points of the parallel and perpendicular distance
measures are capturing the more damaged tissue part within a lesion. A
scatterplot further confirms a positive correlation between MD and the two
distance measures and a negative correlation between FA and the distance
measures (Fig. 4), confirming agreement between lesion severity based on the
T1w, T2w, and FLAIR intensities and microstructural properties of the tissue.Discussion
The appearance of a WMH is known to first be
visible on T2w contrasts and subsequently evolve as “black holes” in T1w images
reflecting a chronic tissue loss. We here present a new method to characterize
and quantify lesion severity based on simple measures of combined conventional
T1w and T2w MRI to supplement the traditional measure of WMH volume and number.
Quantification of lesion severity may increase our understanding of the impact
of WMH on brain structure as well as its functional consequences in e.g. ageing
and multiple sclerosis. The prospect of achieving microstructural information
from conventional structural images has a great advantage over quantitative
maps of e.g. diffusivity or relaxation in terms of higher image resolution,
higher SNR, and shorter acquisition times.Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Nordea Fonden, through the
Center for Healthy Aging, University of Copenhagen.References
1) Garde E, et al Lancet (2000). 2) Salat DH, et al.,
Neuroscience (2014). 3) Fazekas F, et al., Neurology (1993). 4) Schelten P, et
al., Journal of the Neurological Sciences 114, 7–12 (1993). 5) Eugenia M, et
al., Neuroinform (2015). 6) Eriksen CS, Garde E, Reislev NL, et
al. BMJ Open 2016. 7) Battaglini M, et al Hum Brain Mapp (2012). 8) Andersson
JLR et al., NI 125, (2016). 9) Maniega S, et al., Neruobiol. aging (2015). 10) Ashburner
J et al., NI 38(1) (2007).