Advertisement

Comparison of multi-shot and single shot echo-planar diffusion tensor techniques for the optic pathway in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1

  • Chang Y. HoEmail author
  • Rachael Deardorff
  • Stephen F. Kralik
  • John D. West
  • Yu-Chien Wu
  • Chie-Schin Shih
Paediatric Neuroradiology

Abstract

Purpose

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) may be helpful in assessing optic pathway integrity as a marker for treatment in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) patients with optic gliomas (OG). However, susceptibility artifacts are common in typical single-shot echo planar imaging (ssDTI). A readout-segmented multi-shot EPI technique (rsDTI) was utilized to minimize susceptibility distortions of the skull base and improve quantitative metrics.

Methods

Healthy controls, children with NF1 without OG, and NF1 with OG ± visual symptoms were included. All subjects were scanned with both rsDTI and ssDTI sequences sequentially. Diffusion metrics and deterministic fiber tracking were calculated. Tract count, volume, and length were also compared by a two-factor mixed ANOVA.

Results

Five healthy controls, 7 NF1 children without OG, and 12 NF1 children with OG were imaged. Six OG patients had visual symptoms. Four subjects had no detectable optic pathway fibers on ssDTI due to susceptibility, for which rsDTI was able to delineate. Tract count (p < 0.001), tract volume (p < 0.001), and FA (P < 0.001) were significantly higher for rsDTI versus ssDTI for all subjects. MD (p < 0.001) and RD (p < 0.001) were significantly lower for rsDTI vs ssDTI. Finally, MD, AD, and RD had a significantly lower difference in NF1 children with visual symptoms compared to NF1 children without visual symptoms only on ssDTI scans.

Conclusion

DTI with readout-segmented multi-shot EPI technique can better visualize the optic pathway and allow more confident measurements of anisotropy in NF1 patients. This is shown by a significant increase in FA, tract count, and volume with rsDTI versus ssDTI.

Keywords

Neurofibromatosis type 1 Optic nerve glioma Diffusion tensor imaging 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was funded by Chie-Schin Shih and an American Cancer Society Institutional Research Award (IRG-84-002-25).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher MJ, Loguidice M, Gutmann DH, Listernick R, Ferner RE, Ullrich NJ, Packer RJ, Tabori U, Hoffman RO, Ardern-Holmes SL, Hummel TR, Hargrave DR, Bouffet E, Charrow J, Bilaniuk LT, Balcer LJ, Liu GT (2012) Visual outcomes in children with neurofibromatosis type 1-associated optic pathway glioma following chemotherapy: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Neuro-Oncology 14(6):790–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufman LM, Doroftei O (2006) Optic glioma warranting treatment in children. Eye(Lond) 20(10):1149–1164Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toledano H, Muhsinoglu O, Luckman J, Goldenberg-Cohen N, Michowiz S (2015) Acquired nystagmus as the initial presenting sign of chiasmal glioma in young children. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 19(6):694–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmitz B, Schaefer T, Krick CM, Reith W, Backens M, Ka¨smann-Kellner B (2003) Configuration of the optic chiasm in humans with albinism as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44(1):16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thiagalingam S, Flaherty M, Billson F, North K (2004) Neurofibromatosis type 1 and optic pathway gliomas: follow-up of 54 patients. Ophthalmology 111(3):568–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zeid JL, Charrow J, Sandu M, Goldman S, Listernick R (2006) Orbital optic nerve gliomas in children with neurofibromatosis type 1. J AAPOS 10(6):534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao M, Liu Z, Sha Y, Wang S, Ye X, Pan Y, Wang S (2016) Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging in the evaluation of sinonasal lesions: a comprehensive comparison of image quality in single-shot echo-planar imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 34(2):166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yeh FC, Verstynen TD, Wang Y et al (2013) Deterministic diffusion fiber tracking improved by quantitative anisotropy. PLoS One 8(11):e80713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamashita K, Yoshiura T, Hiwatashi A, Kamano H, Dashjamts T, Shibata S, Tamae A, Honda H (2011) Detection of middle ear cholesteatoma by diffusion-weighted MR imaging: multishot echo-planar imaging compared with single-shot echo-planar imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32(10):1915–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Porter DA, Heidemann RM (2009) High resolution diffusion-weighted imaging using readout-segmented echo-planar imaging, parallel imaging and a two-dimensional navigator-based reacquisition. Magn Reson Med 62(2):468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeong HK, Dewey BE, Hirtle JA et al (2015) Improved diffusion tensor imaging of the optic nerve using multishot two-dimensional navigated acquisitions. Magn Reson Med 74(4):953–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hegedus B, Hughes FW, Garbow JR, Gianino S, Banerjee D, Kim K, Ellisman MH, Brantley MA Jr, Gutmann DH (2009) Optic nerve dysfunction in a mouse model of neurofibromatosis-1 optic glioma. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 68(5):542–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filippi CG, Bos A, Nickerson JP, Salmela MB, Koski CJ, Cauley KA (2012) Magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging (MRDTI) of the optic nerve and optic radiations at 3T in children with neurofibromatosis type I (NF-1). Pediatr Radiol 42(2):168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nickerson JP, Salmela MB, Koski CJ, Andrews T, Filippi CG (2010) Diffusion tensor imaging of the pediatric optic nerve: intrinsic and extrinsic pathology compared to normal controls. J Magn Reson Imaging 32(1):76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Hecke W, Leemans A, Emsell L (2016) DTI analysis methods: voxel-based analysis. In: Van Hecke W, Emsell L, Sunaert S (eds) Diffusion tensor imaging. Springer, New York, pp 183–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Blank PM, Berman JI, Liu GT et al (2013) Fractional anisotropy of the optic radiations is associated with visual acuity loss in optic pathway gliomas of neurofibromatosis type 1. Neuro-Oncology 15(8):1088–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ellingson BM, Ulmer JL, Kurpad SN, Schmit BD (2008) Diffusion tensor MR imaging in chronic spinal cord injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29(10):1976–1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ertan G, Zan E, Yousem DM, Ceritoglu C, Tekes A, Poretti A, Huisman TAGM (2014) Diffusion tensor imaging of neurofibromatosis bright objects in children with neurofibromatosis type 1. Neuroradiol J 27(5):616–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Blank PM, Berman JI, Fisher MJ (2016) Systemic chemotherapy and white matter integrity in tracts associated with cognition among children with Neurofibromatosis type 1. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63(5):818–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Risk BB, Kociuba MC, Rowe DB (2018) Impacts of simultaneous multislice acquisition on sensitivity and specificity in fMRI. Neuroimage 172:538–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Imaging SciencesIndiana University School of MedicineIndianaUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyTexas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology/OncologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations