Open AccessQuantifying brain volumes for Multiple Sclerosis patients follow‐up in clinical practice – comparison of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging
Author(s) -
Lysandropoulos Andreas P.,
Absil Julie,
Metens Thierry,
Mavroudakis Nicolas,
Guisset François,
Van Vlierberghe Eline,
Smeets Dirk,
David Philippe,
Maertens Anke,
Van Hecke Wim
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
brain and behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.915
H-Index - 41
ISSN - 2162-3279
DOI - 10.1002/brb3.422
Subject(s) - multiple sclerosis , magnetic resonance imaging , medicine , fluid attenuated inversion recovery , atrophy , scanner , nuclear medicine , clinical practice , brain size , radiology , pathology , computer science , physical therapy , artificial intelligence , psychiatry
There is emerging evidence that brain atrophy is a part of the pathophysiology of Multiple Sclerosis ( MS ) and correlates with several clinical outcomes of the disease, both physical and cognitive. Consequently, brain atrophy is becoming an important parameter in patients' follow‐up. Since in clinical practice both 1.5Tesla (T) and 3T magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) systems are used for MS patients follow‐up, questions arise regarding compatibility and a possible need for standardization. Methods Therefore, in this study 18 MS patients were scanned on the same day on a 1.5T and a 3T scanner. For each scanner, a 3D T1 and a 3D FLAIR were acquired. As no atrophy is expected within 1 day, these datasets can be used to evaluate the median percentage error of the brain volume measurement for gray matter ( GM ) volume and parenchymal volume ( PV ) between 1.5T and 3T scanners. The results are obtained with MS metrix, which is developed especially for use in the MS clinical care path, and compared to Siena ( FSL ), a widely used software for research purposes. Results The MS metrix median percentage error of the brain volume measurement between a 1.5T and a 3T scanner is 0.52% for GM and 0.35% for PV . For Siena this error equals 2.99%. When data of the same scanner are compared, the error is in the order of 0.06–0.08% for both MS metrix and Siena. Conclusions MS metrix appears robust on both the 1.5T and 3T systems and the measurement error becomes an order of magnitude higher between scanners with different field strength.