Central Slab versus Whole Brain to Measure Brain Atrophy in Multiple Sclerosis

Abstract

Background: Structural Image Evaluation using Normalization of Atrophy (SIENA) is used to measure brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, brain extraction is prone to artefacts in the upper and lower parts of the brain. To overcome these shortcomings, some pivotal MS trials used a central slab instead of the whole brain as input for SIENA. The aim of this study was to compare the internal consistency and statistical dispersion of atrophy measures, associations with clinical outcomes and required sample sizes in clinical trials between these two approaches. Methods: Brain volume change was assessed using SIENA in 119 MS patients with 5-years follow-up on 3D T1-weighted Magnetization Prepared Rapid Gradient Echo datasets using the whole brain or a central slab ranging from –10 to +60 mm Montreal Neurological Institute atlas coordinates. The statistical analysis included the quartile coefficient of dispersion, partial correlations with clinical outcomes and sample size calculations. Clinical outcome measures comprised the Expanded Disability Status Scale, MS Functional Composite and Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Results: Annualized brain atrophy rates were higher using central slab than whole brain as input for SIENA (–0.51 ± 0.49 vs. –0.37 ± 0.39% per year, p < 0.001). Central and whole brain volume change showed comparable statistical dispersion and similarly correlated with clinical outcomes at 5-years follow-up. Sample size calculations estimated 14% fewer patients required to detect a given treatment effect when using the central slab instead of the whole brain option in SIENA. Conclusion: Central slab and whole brain SIENA produced comparable statistical dispersion with similar associations to clinical outcomes.