Spinal cord metrics derived from diffusion MRI: improvement in prognostication in cervical spondylotic myelopathy compared with conventional MRI.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine Pub Date : 2024-07-26 Print Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.3171/2024.4.SPINE24107
Justin K Zhang, Salim Yakdan, Muhammad I Kaleem, Saad Javeed, Jacob K Greenberg, Kathleen S Botterbush, Braeden Benedict, Martin Reis, Natasha Hongsermeier-Graves, Spencer Twitchell, Brandon Sherrod, Marcus S Mazur, Mark A Mahan, Andrew T Dailey, Erica F Bisson, Sheng-Kwei Song, Wilson Z Ray
{"title":"Spinal cord metrics derived from diffusion MRI: improvement in prognostication in cervical spondylotic myelopathy compared with conventional MRI.","authors":"Justin K Zhang, Salim Yakdan, Muhammad I Kaleem, Saad Javeed, Jacob K Greenberg, Kathleen S Botterbush, Braeden Benedict, Martin Reis, Natasha Hongsermeier-Graves, Spencer Twitchell, Brandon Sherrod, Marcus S Mazur, Mark A Mahan, Andrew T Dailey, Erica F Bisson, Sheng-Kwei Song, Wilson Z Ray","doi":"10.3171/2024.4.SPINE24107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A major shortcoming in optimizing care for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the lack of robust quantitative imaging tools offered by conventional MRI. Advanced MRI modalities, such as diffusion MRI (dMRI), including diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion basis spectrum imaging (DBSI), may help address this limitation by providing granular evaluations of spinal cord microstructure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-seven patients with CSM underwent comprehensive clinical assessments and dMRI, followed by DTI and DBSI modeling. Conventional MRI metrics included 10 total qualitative and quantitative assessments of spinal cord compression in both the sagittal and axial planes. The dMRI metrics included 12 unique measures including anisotropic tensors, reflecting axonal diffusion, and isotropic tensors, describing extraaxonal diffusion. The primary outcome was the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score measured at 2 years postoperatively. Extreme gradient boosting-supervised classification algorithms were used to classify patients into disease groups and to prognosticate surgical outcomes at 2-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-seven patients with CSM, including 24 (51%) with a mild mJOA score, 12 (26%) with a moderate mJOA score, and 11 (23%) with a severe mJOA score, as well as 21 control subjects were included. In the classification task, the traditional MRI metrics correctly assigned patients to healthy control versus mild CSM versus moderate/severe CSM cohorts, with an accuracy of 0.647 (95% CI 0.64-0.65). In comparison, the DTI model performed with an accuracy of 0.52 (95% CI 0.51-0.52) and the DBSI model's accuracy was 0.81 (95% CI 0.808-0.814). In the prognostication task, the traditional MRI metrics correctly predicted patients with CSM who improved at 2-year follow-up on the basis of change in mJOA, with an accuracy of 0.58 (95% CI 0.57-0.58). In comparison, the DTI model performed with an accuracy of 0.62 (95% CI 0.61-0.62) and the DBSI model had an accuracy of 0.72 (95% CI 0.718-0.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conventional MRI is a powerful tool to assess structural abnormality in CSM but is inherently limited in its ability to characterize spinal cord tissue injury. The results of this study demonstrate that advanced imaging techniques, namely DBSI-derived metrics from dMRI, provide granular assessments of spinal cord microstructure that can offer better diagnostic and prognostic utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"639-647"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.4.SPINE24107","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: A major shortcoming in optimizing care for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the lack of robust quantitative imaging tools offered by conventional MRI. Advanced MRI modalities, such as diffusion MRI (dMRI), including diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion basis spectrum imaging (DBSI), may help address this limitation by providing granular evaluations of spinal cord microstructure.

Methods: Forty-seven patients with CSM underwent comprehensive clinical assessments and dMRI, followed by DTI and DBSI modeling. Conventional MRI metrics included 10 total qualitative and quantitative assessments of spinal cord compression in both the sagittal and axial planes. The dMRI metrics included 12 unique measures including anisotropic tensors, reflecting axonal diffusion, and isotropic tensors, describing extraaxonal diffusion. The primary outcome was the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score measured at 2 years postoperatively. Extreme gradient boosting-supervised classification algorithms were used to classify patients into disease groups and to prognosticate surgical outcomes at 2-year follow-up.

Results: Forty-seven patients with CSM, including 24 (51%) with a mild mJOA score, 12 (26%) with a moderate mJOA score, and 11 (23%) with a severe mJOA score, as well as 21 control subjects were included. In the classification task, the traditional MRI metrics correctly assigned patients to healthy control versus mild CSM versus moderate/severe CSM cohorts, with an accuracy of 0.647 (95% CI 0.64-0.65). In comparison, the DTI model performed with an accuracy of 0.52 (95% CI 0.51-0.52) and the DBSI model's accuracy was 0.81 (95% CI 0.808-0.814). In the prognostication task, the traditional MRI metrics correctly predicted patients with CSM who improved at 2-year follow-up on the basis of change in mJOA, with an accuracy of 0.58 (95% CI 0.57-0.58). In comparison, the DTI model performed with an accuracy of 0.62 (95% CI 0.61-0.62) and the DBSI model had an accuracy of 0.72 (95% CI 0.718-0.73).

Conclusions: Conventional MRI is a powerful tool to assess structural abnormality in CSM but is inherently limited in its ability to characterize spinal cord tissue injury. The results of this study demonstrate that advanced imaging techniques, namely DBSI-derived metrics from dMRI, provide granular assessments of spinal cord microstructure that can offer better diagnostic and prognostic utility.

从弥散核磁共振成像得出的脊髓指标:与传统核磁共振成像相比,对颈椎病脊髓病的预后有改善。
目的:优化颈椎病(CSM)患者治疗的一大缺陷是传统磁共振成像缺乏强大的定量成像工具。先进的磁共振成像模式,如弥散磁共振成像(dMRI),包括弥散张量成像(DTI)和弥散基谱成像(DBSI),可对脊髓微观结构进行精细评估,有助于解决这一局限性:47名CSM患者接受了全面的临床评估和dMRI检查,随后进行了DTI和DBSI建模。传统 MRI 指标包括矢状面和轴向面上脊髓压迫的 10 项定性和定量评估。dMRI 指标包括 12 个独特的测量指标,包括反映轴索扩散的各向异性张量和描述轴外扩散的各向同性张量。主要结果是术后两年的改良日本骨科协会(mJOA)评分。使用极梯度提升监督分类算法将患者分为不同的疾病组,并预测术后两年的手术效果:研究纳入了 47 名 CSM 患者,其中 24 人(51%)为轻度 mJOA 评分,12 人(26%)为中度 mJOA 评分,11 人(23%)为重度 mJOA 评分,以及 21 名对照组受试者。在分类任务中,传统的 MRI 指标能正确地将患者分为健康对照组、轻度 CSM 组和中度/重度 CSM 组,准确率为 0.647(95% CI 0.64-0.65)。相比之下,DTI 模型的准确率为 0.52(95% CI 0.51-0.52),DBSI 模型的准确率为 0.81(95% CI 0.808-0.814)。在预后任务中,传统的 MRI 指标能根据 mJOA 的变化正确预测 2 年随访时病情好转的 CSM 患者,准确率为 0.58(95% CI 0.57-0.58)。相比之下,DTI模型的准确率为0.62(95% CI 0.61-0.62),DBSI模型的准确率为0.72(95% CI 0.718-0.73):传统磁共振成像是评估 CSM 结构异常的有力工具,但在描述脊髓组织损伤的能力方面存在固有的局限性。本研究结果表明,先进的成像技术(即从 dMRI 提取的 DBSI 指标)可对脊髓微观结构进行精细评估,从而提供更好的诊断和预后效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信