AUTHOR=Mansoor Nina M. , Vanniyasingam Tishok , Malone Ian , Hobbs Nicola Z. , Rees Elin , Durr Alexandra , Roos Raymund A. C. , Landwehrmeyer Bernhard , Tabrizi Sarah J. , Johnson Eileanoir B. , Scahill Rachael I. 

TITLE=Validating Automated Segmentation Tools in the Assessment of Caudate Atrophy in Huntington’s Disease

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Neurology

VOLUME=12

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.616272

DOI=10.3389/fneur.2021.616272

ISSN=1664-2295

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Background:</bold> Neuroimaging shows considerable promise in generating sensitive and objective outcome measures for therapeutic trials across a range of neurodegenerative conditions. For volumetric measures the current gold standard is manual delineation, which is unfeasible for samples sizes required for large clinical trials.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> Using a cohort of early Huntington’s disease (HD) patients (<italic>n</italic> = 46) and controls (<italic>n</italic> = 35), we compared the performance of four automated segmentation tools (FIRST, FreeSurfer, STEPS, MALP-EM) with manual delineation for generating cross-sectional caudate volume, a region known to be vulnerable in HD. We then examined the effect of each of these baseline regions on the ability to detect change over 15 months using the established longitudinal Caudate Boundary Shift Integral (cBSI) method, an automated longitudinal pipeline requiring a baseline caudate region as an input.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> All tools, except Freesurfer, generated significantly smaller caudate volumes than the manually derived regions. Jaccard indices showed poorer levels of overlap between each automated segmentation and manual delineation in the HD patients compared with controls. Nevertheless, each method was able to demonstrate significant group differences in volume (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001). STEPS performed best qualitatively as well as quantitively in the baseline analysis. Caudate atrophy measures generated by the cBSI using automated baseline regions were largely consistent with those derived from a manually segmented baseline, with STEPS providing the most robust cBSI values across both control and HD groups.</p><p><bold>Conclusions:</bold> Atrophy measures from the cBSI were relatively robust to differences in baseline segmentation technique, suggesting that fully automated pipelines could be used to generate outcome measures for clinical trials.</p>