PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Francesco La Rosa
AU  - Erin S. Beck
AU  - Josefina Maranzano
AU  - Ramona-Alexandra Todea
AU  - Peter van Gelderen
AU  - Jacco A. de Zwart
AU  - Nicholas J. Luciano
AU  - Jeff H. Duyn
AU  - Jean-Philippe Thiran
AU  - Cristina Granziera
AU  - Daniel S. Reich
AU  - Pascal Sati
AU  - Meritxell Bach Cuadra
TI  - Multiple sclerosis cortical lesion detection with deep learning at ultra-high-field MRI
AID  - 10.1101/2022.03.02.22271269
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.03.02.22271269
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/03/2022.03.02.22271269.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/03/2022.03.02.22271269.full
AB  - Manually segmenting multiple sclerosis (MS) cortical lesions (CL) is extremely time-consuming, and past studies have shown only moderate inter-rater reliability. To accelerate this task, we developed a deep learning-based framework (CLAIMS: Cortical Lesion Artificial Intelligence-based assessment in Multiple Sclerosis) for the automated detection and classification of MS CL with 7T MRI.Two 7T datasets, acquired at different sites, were considered. The first consisted of 60 scans that include 0.5mm isotropic MP2RAGE acquired 4 times (MP2RAGEx4), 0.7mm MP2RAGE, 0.5mm T2*-weighted GRE, and 0.5mm T2*-weighted EPI. The second dataset consisted of 20 scans including only 0.75×0.75×0.9 mm MP2RAGE. CLAIMS was first evaluated using 6-fold cross-validation with single and multi-contrast 0.5mm MRI input. Second, performance of the model was tested on 0.7mm MP2RAGE images after training with either 0.5mm MP2RAGEx4, 0.7mm MP2RAGE, or alternating the two. Third, its generalizability was evaluated on the second external dataset and compared with a state-of-the-art technique based on partial volume estimation and topological constraints (MSLAST). CLAIMS trained only with MP2RAGEx4 achieved comparable results to the multi-contrast model, reaching a CL true positive rate of 74% with a false positive rate of 30%. Detection rate was excellent for leukocortical and subpial lesions (83%, and 70%, respectively), whereas it reached 53% for intracortical lesions. The correlation between disability measures and CL count was similar for manual and CLAIMS lesion counts. Applying a domain-scanner adaptation approach and testing CLAIMS on the second dataset, the performance was superior to MSLAST when considering a minimum lesion volume of 6μL (lesion-wise detection rate of 71% vs 48%).The proposed framework outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods for automated CL detection across scanners and protocols. In the future, CLAIMS may be useful to support clinical decisions at 7T MRI, especially in the field of diagnosis and differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis patients.Competing Interest StatementDSR: Research support from Abata, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Vertex. CG: The University Hospital Basel (USB), as the employer of C.G., has received the following fees which were used exclusively for research support: (i) advisory board and consultancy fees from Actelion, Genzyme-Sanofi, Novartis, GeNeuro, and Roche; (ii) speaker fees from Genzyme-Sanofi, Novartis, GeNeuro and Roche; (iii) research support from Siemens, GeNeuro, Roche. For the remaining authors, none were declared.Funding StatementF.L.R. is supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie project TRABIT (agreement No 765148) and the Novartis Research Foundation. E.S.B. is supported by a Career Transition Fellowship from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. P.S., E.S.B., P.v.G., J.A.d.Z. and D.S.R. are supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of both the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), and all patients gave written informed consent prior to participation.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.MSmultiple sclerosisGMgray matterWMwhite matterCLcortical lesionsWMLwhite matter lesionsMRImagnetic resonance imaging3Dthree-dimensionalT2* EPIT2*-weighted segmented echo-planar imagingT2* GRET2*w multi-echo GREFLAIR3D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recoveryMP2RAGEmagnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echoesMPRAGEmagnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echoSNRsignal-to-noise ratioCCCLin’s concordance correlation coefficientkCohen’s kappa coefficientCNNconvolutional neural networkCLAIMSCortical Lesion AI-based assessment in Multiple SclerosisEDSSExpanded Disability Status Scale9-HPT9-Hole Peg Test25TW25-foot timed walkSDMTSymbol Digit Modalities TestLTPRlesion-wise true positive rateLFPRlesion-wise false positive rateDSCdice coefficientVDvolume difference