TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of arterial spin labeling registration strategies in the multi-center GENetic frontotemporal dementia initiative (GENFI)
AU - Mutsaerts, Henri J. M. M.
AU - Petr, Jan
AU - Thomas, David L.
AU - de Vita, Enrico
AU - Cash, David M.
AU - van Osch, Matthias J. P.
AU - Golay, Xavier
AU - Groot, Paul F. C.
AU - Ourselin, Sebastien
AU - van Swieten, John
AU - Laforce, Robert
AU - Tagliavini, Fabrizio
AU - Borroni, Barbara
AU - Galimberti, Daniela
AU - Rowe, James B.
AU - Graff, Caroline
AU - Pizzini, Francesca B.
AU - Finger, Elizabeth
AU - Sorbi, Sandro
AU - Castelo Branco, Miguel
AU - Rohrer, Jonathan D.
AU - Masellis, Mario
AU - MacIntosh, Bradley J.
AU - on behalf of the GENFI investigators
AU - Rossor, Martin
AU - Fox, Nick
AU - Warren, Jason
AU - Bocchetta, Martina
AU - Dick, Katrina
AU - Pievani, Michela
AU - Ghidoni, Roberta
AU - Benussi, Luisa
AU - Padovani, Alessandro
AU - Cosseddu, Maura
AU - Mendonça, Alexandre
AU - Frisoni, Giovanni
AU - Premi, Enrico
AU - Archetti, Silvana
AU - Scarpini, Elio
AU - Fumagalli, Giorgio
AU - Arighi, Andrea
AU - Fenoglio, Chiara
AU - Prioni, Sara
AU - Redaelii, Veronica
AU - Grisoli, Marina
AU - Tiraboschi, Pietro
AU - Black, Sandra
AU - Rogaeva, Ekaterina
AU - Freedman, Morris
AU - Panman, Jessica
AU - Jiskoot, Lize
N1 - © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Purpose: To compare registration strategies to align arterial spin labeling (ASL) with 3D T1-weighted (T1w) images, with the goal of reducing the between-subject variability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) images. Materials and Methods: Multi-center 3T ASL data were collected at eight sites with four different sequences in the multi-center GENetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI) study. In a total of 48 healthy controls, we compared the following image registration options: (I) which images to use for registration (perfusion-weighted images [PWI] to the segmented gray matter (GM) probability map (pGM) (CBF-pGM) or M0 to T1w (M0-T1w); (II) which transformation to use (rigid-body or non-rigid); and (III) whether to mask or not (no masking, M0-based FMRIB software library Brain Extraction Tool [BET] masking). In addition to visual comparison, we quantified image similarity using the Pearson correlation coefficient (CC), and used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test. Results: CBF-pGM outperformed M0-T1w (CC improvement 47.2% ± 22.0%; P < 0.001), and the non-rigid transformation outperformed rigid-body (20.6% ± 5.3%; P < 0.001). Masking only improved the M0-T1w rigid-body registration (14.5% ± 15.5%; P = 0.007). Conclusion: The choice of image registration strategy impacts ASL group analyses. The non-rigid transformation is promising but requires validation. CBF-pGM rigid-body registration without masking can be used as a default strategy. In patients with expansive perfusion deficits, M0-T1w may outperform CBF-pGM in sequences with high effective spatial resolution. BET-masking only improves M0-T1w registration when the M0 image has sufficient contrast. Level of Evidence: 1. Technical Efficacy: Stage 1. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:131–140.
AB - Purpose: To compare registration strategies to align arterial spin labeling (ASL) with 3D T1-weighted (T1w) images, with the goal of reducing the between-subject variability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) images. Materials and Methods: Multi-center 3T ASL data were collected at eight sites with four different sequences in the multi-center GENetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI) study. In a total of 48 healthy controls, we compared the following image registration options: (I) which images to use for registration (perfusion-weighted images [PWI] to the segmented gray matter (GM) probability map (pGM) (CBF-pGM) or M0 to T1w (M0-T1w); (II) which transformation to use (rigid-body or non-rigid); and (III) whether to mask or not (no masking, M0-based FMRIB software library Brain Extraction Tool [BET] masking). In addition to visual comparison, we quantified image similarity using the Pearson correlation coefficient (CC), and used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test. Results: CBF-pGM outperformed M0-T1w (CC improvement 47.2% ± 22.0%; P < 0.001), and the non-rigid transformation outperformed rigid-body (20.6% ± 5.3%; P < 0.001). Masking only improved the M0-T1w rigid-body registration (14.5% ± 15.5%; P = 0.007). Conclusion: The choice of image registration strategy impacts ASL group analyses. The non-rigid transformation is promising but requires validation. CBF-pGM rigid-body registration without masking can be used as a default strategy. In patients with expansive perfusion deficits, M0-T1w may outperform CBF-pGM in sequences with high effective spatial resolution. BET-masking only improves M0-T1w registration when the M0 image has sufficient contrast. Level of Evidence: 1. Technical Efficacy: Stage 1. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:131–140.
KW - Adult
KW - Arteries
KW - Brain/diagnostic imaging
KW - Cerebrovascular Circulation
KW - Female
KW - Frontotemporal Dementia/diagnostic imaging
KW - Gray Matter/diagnostic imaging
KW - Humans
KW - Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
KW - Imaging, Three-Dimensional
KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Perfusion
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Spin Labels
KW - Young Adult
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85019064293&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28480617
U2 - 10.1002/jmri.25751
DO - 10.1002/jmri.25751
M3 - Article
C2 - 28480617
SN - 1053-1807
VL - 47
SP - 131
EP - 140
JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
IS - 1
ER -