Stroke Research Group, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Department of Pharmacology, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Memory Ageing and Cognition Center, National University Health System, Singapore.
Neuroimage Clin. 2022;35:103114. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103114. Epub 2022 Jul 13.
DTI is sensitive to white matter (WM) microstructural damage and has been suggested as a surrogate marker for phase 2 clinical trials in cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). The study's objective is to establish the best way to analyse the diffusion-weighted imaging data in SVD for this purpose. The ideal method would be sensitive to change and predict dementia conversion, but also straightforward to implement and ideally automated. As part of the OPTIMAL collaboration, we evaluated five different DTI analysis strategies across six different cohorts with differing SVD severity.
Those 5 strategies were: (1) conventional mean diffusivity WM histogram measure (MD median), (2) a principal component-derived measure based on conventional WM histogram measures (PC1), (3) peak width skeletonized mean diffusivity (PSMD), (4) diffusion tensor image segmentation θ (DSEG θ) and (5) a WM measure of global network efficiency (Geff). The association between each measure and cognitive function was tested using a linear regression model adjusted by clinical markers. Changes in the imaging measures over time were determined. In three cohort studies, repeated imaging data together with data on incident dementia were available. The association between the baseline measure, change measure and incident dementia conversion was examined using Cox proportional-hazard regression or logistic regression models. Sample size estimates for a hypothetical clinical trial were furthermore computed for each DTI analysis strategy.
There was a consistent cross-sectional association between the imaging measures and impaired cognitive function across all cohorts. All baseline measures predicted dementia conversion in severe SVD. In mild SVD, PC1, PSMD and Geff predicted dementia conversion. In MCI, all markers except Geff predicted dementia conversion. Baseline DTI was significantly different in patients converting to vascular dementia than to Alzheimer' s disease. Significant change in all measures was associated with dementia conversion in severe but not in mild SVD. The automatic and semi-automatic measures PSMD and DSEG θ required the lowest minimum sample sizes for a hypothetical clinical trial in single-centre sporadic SVD cohorts.
DTI parameters obtained from all analysis methods predicted dementia, and there was no clear winner amongst the different analysis strategies. The fully automated analysis provided by PSMD offers advantages particularly for large datasets.
DTI 对白质(WM)微观结构损伤敏感,已被提议作为脑小血管病(SVD)二期临床试验的替代标志物。本研究的目的是为了确定分析 SVD 中弥散加权成像数据的最佳方法。理想的方法应该对变化敏感,能预测痴呆的转化,而且实施起来要简单,最好是自动化的。作为 OPTIMAL 合作的一部分,我们评估了五种不同的 DTI 分析策略,这些策略分别在六个具有不同 SVD 严重程度的队列中进行。
这 5 种策略是:(1)常规平均弥散度 WM 直方图测量(MD 中位数),(2)基于常规 WM 直方图测量的主成分衍生测量(PC1),(3)峰宽骨架平均弥散度(PSMD),(4)扩散张量图像分割θ(DSEGθ)和(5)WM 整体网络效率测量(Geff)。使用线性回归模型,通过临床标志物进行调整,来测试每种测量方法与认知功能之间的关联。还确定了随时间变化的影像学测量值。在三项队列研究中,提供了重复的影像学数据和新发痴呆的数据。使用 Cox 比例风险回归或逻辑回归模型,检查基线测量值、变化测量值与新发痴呆转化的关联。此外,还为每种 DTI 分析策略计算了假设性临床试验的样本量估计值。
在所有队列中,影像学测量值与认知功能受损之间存在一致的横断面关联。所有基线测量值均预测了 SVD 严重患者的痴呆转化。在 SVD 轻度患者中,PC1、PSMD 和 Geff 预测了痴呆的转化。在 MCI 中,除了 Geff 外,所有标志物均预测了痴呆的转化。向血管性痴呆转化的患者的基线 DTI 与向阿尔茨海默病转化的患者明显不同。所有测量值的显著变化与严重 SVD 中的痴呆转化相关,但与轻度 SVD 无关。假设在单中心散发性 SVD 队列中进行临床试验,全自动和半自动的 PSMD 和 DSEGθ 分析需要的最小样本量最低。
所有分析方法获得的 DTI 参数均预测了痴呆,不同分析策略之间没有明显的赢家。PSMD 提供的全自动分析,尤其是在大数据集方面,具有优势。