Semi-automated detection of cervical spinal cord compression with the Spinal Cord Toolbox.

Spinal cord compression (SCC) cervical spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) myelopathy reproducibility

Journal

Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Historique:
received: 05 08 2021
accepted: 13 12 2021
entrez: 4 4 2022
pubmed: 5 4 2022
medline: 5 4 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Degenerative cervical spinal cord compression is becoming increasingly prevalent, yet the MRI criteria that define compression are vague, and vary between studies. This contribution addresses the detection of compression by means of the Spinal Cord Toolbox (SCT) and assesses the variability of the morphometric parameters extracted with it. Prospective cross-sectional study. Two types of MRI examination, 3 and 1.5 T, were performed on 66 healthy controls and 118 participants with cervical spinal cord compression. Morphometric parameters from 3T MRI obtained by Spinal Cord Toolbox (cross-sectional area, solidity, compressive ratio, torsion) were combined in multivariate logistic regression models with the outcome (binary dependent variable) being the presence of compression determined by two radiologists. Inter-trial (between 3 and 1.5 T) and inter-rater (three expert raters and SCT) variability of morphometric parameters were assessed in a subset of 35 controls and 30 participants with compression. The logistic model combining compressive ratio, cross-sectional area, solidity, torsion and one binary indicator, whether or not the compression was set at level C6/7, demonstrated outstanding compression detection (area under curve =0.947). The single best cut-off for predicted probability calculated using a multiple regression equation was 0.451, with a sensitivity of 87.3% and a specificity of 90.2%. The inter-trial variability was better in Spinal Cord Toolbox (intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.858 for compressive ratio and 0.735 for cross-sectional area) compared to expert raters (mean coefficient for three expert raters was 0.722 for compressive ratio and 0.486 for cross-sectional area). The analysis of inter-rater variability demonstrated general agreement between SCT and three expert raters, as the correlations between SCT and raters were generally similar to those of the raters between one another. This study demonstrates successful semi-automated compression detection based on four parameters. The inter-trial variability of parameters established through two MRI examinations was conclusively better for Spinal Cord Toolbox compared with that of three experts' manual ratings.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Degenerative cervical spinal cord compression is becoming increasingly prevalent, yet the MRI criteria that define compression are vague, and vary between studies. This contribution addresses the detection of compression by means of the Spinal Cord Toolbox (SCT) and assesses the variability of the morphometric parameters extracted with it.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Prospective cross-sectional study. Two types of MRI examination, 3 and 1.5 T, were performed on 66 healthy controls and 118 participants with cervical spinal cord compression. Morphometric parameters from 3T MRI obtained by Spinal Cord Toolbox (cross-sectional area, solidity, compressive ratio, torsion) were combined in multivariate logistic regression models with the outcome (binary dependent variable) being the presence of compression determined by two radiologists. Inter-trial (between 3 and 1.5 T) and inter-rater (three expert raters and SCT) variability of morphometric parameters were assessed in a subset of 35 controls and 30 participants with compression.
Results UNASSIGNED
The logistic model combining compressive ratio, cross-sectional area, solidity, torsion and one binary indicator, whether or not the compression was set at level C6/7, demonstrated outstanding compression detection (area under curve =0.947). The single best cut-off for predicted probability calculated using a multiple regression equation was 0.451, with a sensitivity of 87.3% and a specificity of 90.2%. The inter-trial variability was better in Spinal Cord Toolbox (intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.858 for compressive ratio and 0.735 for cross-sectional area) compared to expert raters (mean coefficient for three expert raters was 0.722 for compressive ratio and 0.486 for cross-sectional area). The analysis of inter-rater variability demonstrated general agreement between SCT and three expert raters, as the correlations between SCT and raters were generally similar to those of the raters between one another.
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
This study demonstrates successful semi-automated compression detection based on four parameters. The inter-trial variability of parameters established through two MRI examinations was conclusively better for Spinal Cord Toolbox compared with that of three experts' manual ratings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35371944
doi: 10.21037/qims-21-782
pii: qims-12-04-2261
pmc: PMC8923862
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2261-2279

Informations de copyright

2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-21-782/coif). MH, TH, JK, TS, ZK, PB, AS and JB report that this research was supported by Czech Health Research Council grant (ref. NV18-04-00159), Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (ref. 65269705) and The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (ref. MUNI/A/1600/2020). JV and PH report that this research was supported by Czech Health Research Council grant (ref. NV18-04-00159), Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (ref. 00098892). TR, MD, and MK report that this research was supported by Czech Health Research Council grant (ref. NV18-04-00159) and Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (ref. 65269705). EK reports that this research was supported by Czech Health Research Council grant (ref. NV18-04-00159). PB received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement (No. 846793), and by a NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (No. 27238) for duration of this project. AS received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement (No. 794986) for the duration of this project. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Références

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Dec 15;41(24):1908-1916
pubmed: 27509189
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):E675-93
pubmed: 25839387
Brain Behav. 2017 Aug 11;7(9):e00797
pubmed: 28948090
Global Spine J. 2021 May;11(4):597-607
pubmed: 32677521
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 20;6:24636
pubmed: 27095134
Eur Spine J. 2008 Mar;17(3):421-431
pubmed: 18193301
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 13;8(4):e019809
pubmed: 29654015
Neuroimage. 2017 Jan 15;145(Pt A):24-43
pubmed: 27720818
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S37-54
pubmed: 23963005
J Neurotrauma. 2020 Mar 15;37(6):860-867
pubmed: 31544628
J Clin Med. 2021 Feb 23;10(4):
pubmed: 33672259
Eur J Neurol. 2021 Nov;28(11):3784-3797
pubmed: 34288268
Nat Protoc. 2021 Oct;16(10):4611-4632
pubmed: 34400839
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Apr;49(4):1078-1090
pubmed: 30198209
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jan 1;37(1):48-56
pubmed: 21228747
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Aug 15;26(16):1760-4
pubmed: 11493847
J Neurotrauma. 2021 Nov 1;38(21):2999-3010
pubmed: 34428934
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 17;13(4):e0195733
pubmed: 29664964
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Jun;38(6):1266-1273
pubmed: 28428212
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 16;10(1):17529
pubmed: 33067520
Neuroimage. 2019 Jan 1;184:901-915
pubmed: 30300751

Auteurs

Magda Horáková (M)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Central European Institute of Technology, Multimodal and Functional Imaging Laboratory, Brno, Czech Republic.

Tomáš Horák (T)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Central European Institute of Technology, Multimodal and Functional Imaging Laboratory, Brno, Czech Republic.

Jan Valošek (J)

Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.

Tomáš Rohan (T)

Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.

Eva Koriťáková (E)

Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

Marek Dostál (M)

Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.

Jan Kočica (J)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Central European Institute of Technology, Multimodal and Functional Imaging Laboratory, Brno, Czech Republic.

Tomáš Skutil (T)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

Miloš Keřkovský (M)

Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.

Zdeněk Kadaňka (Z)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

Petr Bednařík (P)

Central European Institute of Technology, Multimodal and Functional Imaging Laboratory, Brno, Czech Republic.
Medical University of Vienna, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, High Field MR Centre, Vienna, Austria.
Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Department of Radiology, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.

Alena Svátková (A)

Central European Institute of Technology, Multimodal and Functional Imaging Laboratory, Brno, Czech Republic.
Department of Imaging Methods, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine III, Clinical Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vienna, Austria.

Petr Hluštík (P)

Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.

Josef Bednařík (J)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Central European Institute of Technology, Multimodal and Functional Imaging Laboratory, Brno, Czech Republic.

Classifications MeSH