Clinical Research Article | Published:

Comparison of MRI and neurosonogram 1- and 2-dimensional morphological measurements of the newborn corpus callosum

Abstract

Background

Developmental abnormalities of the corpus callosum (CC) are linked to multiple neuro-developmental disorders, for which neonatal neuroimaging may allow earlier diagnosis and intervention. MRI is often considered the most sensitive imaging modality to white matter changes, while neurosonogram (NS) remains the clinical staple. This study assesses the correlation between MRI and US measurements of the neonatal CC using a protocol derived from established methodologies.

Methods

MR and NS images from an existing cohort of term infants (≥37 weeks gestational age) were studied. Length and area measurements of the CC made with linear (LUS) and phased array US (PUS) data were compared to those from MRI. Intra-observer reliabilities were estimated.

Results

Moderate-to-strong correlation strengths were observed for length measurements and the total area of the CC. Sectional area measurements showed poorer correlations. Bland–Altman plots support improved correspondence of length and total area measurements. LUS data appeared to correspond closer to MRI. All three modalities showed comparable repeatability.

Conclusion

NS correlates well with some MRI measurements of the CC and shows similar levels of repeatability, making them possibly interchangeable. Use of LUS, a technique rarely used for NS, may be preferable to the standard approach for morphological studies.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Waxman, S. G. Clinical Neuroanatomy 26th edn (McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 2010).

  2. 2.

    Gazzaniga, M. S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication. Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain 123, 1293–1326 (2000).

  3. 3.

    Aboitiz, F., López, J. & Montiel, J. Long distance communication in the human brain: timing constraints for inter-hemispheric synchrony and the origin of brain lateralization. Biol. Res. 36, 89–99 (2003).

  4. 4.

    Aboitiz, F. & Montiel, J. One hundred million years of interhemispheric communication: the history of the corpus callosum. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 36, 409–420 (2003).

  5. 5.

    Mihrshahi, R. The corpus callosum as an evolutionary innovation. J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Dev. Evol. 306, 8–17 (2006).

  6. 6.

    Paul, L. K. Developmental malformation of the corpus callosum: a review of typical callosal development and examples of developmental disorders with callosal involvement. J. Neurodev. Disord. 3, 3–27 (2011).

  7. 7.

    Xia, Z., Hoeft, F., Zhang, L. & Shu, H. Neuroanatomical anomalies of dyslexia: disambiguating the effects of disorder, performance, and maturation. Neuropsychologia 81, 68–78 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Just, M. A., Cherkassky, V. L., Keller, Ta, Kana, R. K. & Minshew, N. J. Functional and anatomical cortical underconnectivity in autism: evidence from an fmri study of an executive function task and corpus callosum morphometry. Cereb. Cortex 17, 951–961 (2007).

  9. 9.

    Arnold, L. E., Hodgkins, P., Kahle, J., Madhoo, M. & Kewley, G. Long-term outcomes of ADHD: academic achievement and performance. J. Atten. Disord. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054714566076 (2015).

  10. 10.

    Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L. & Francis, D. J. The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Read. Res. Q 40, 148–182 (2005).

  11. 11.

    Mcgoey, K. E., Eckert, T. L., Dupaul, G. J. & Hyperactivity, A. T. Early intervention for preschool-age children with ADHD: a literature review. J. Emot. Behav. Disord. 10, 14–28 (2002).

  12. 12.

    Wezel-meijler, G. Van, Steggerda, S. J. & Leijser, L. M. Cranial ultrasonography in neonates: role and limitations. Semin. Perinatol. 34, 28–38 (2010).

  13. 13.

    Meijler, G. Neonatal Cranial Ultrasonography 2nd edn (Springer, Berlin, 2012).

  14. 14.

    Miller, S. P. et al. Comparing the diagnosis of white matter injury in premature newborns with serial MR imaging and transfontanel ultrasonography findings. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 24, 1661–1669 (2003).

  15. 15.

    Maalouf, E. F. et al. Comparison of findings on cranial ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in preterm infants. Pediatrics 107, 719–727 (2001).

  16. 16.

    Rademaker, K. J. et al. Neonatal cranial ultrasound versus MRI and neurodevelopmental outcome at school age in children born preterm. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 90, F489–F494 (2005).

  17. 17.

    Leijser, L. M. et al. Structural linear measurements in the newborn brain: accuracy of cranial ultrasound compared to MRI. Pediatr. Radiol. 37, 640–648 (2007).

  18. 18.

    Gilmore, J. H. et al. Infant cerebral ventricle volume: a comparison of 3-D ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 27, 1143–1146 (2001).

  19. 19.

    Liu, F. et al. Ultrasound measurement of the corpus callosum and neural development of premature infants. Neural Regen. Res. 8, 2432 (2013).

  20. 20.

    Witelson, S. Hand and sex differences in the isthmus and genu of the human corpus callosum: a postmortem morphological study. Brain 112, 799–835 (1989).

  21. 21.

    Thompson, D. K. et al. Accelerated corpus callosum development in prematurity predicts improved outcome. Hum. Brain Mapp. 36, 3733–3748 (2015).

  22. 22.

    Anderson, N. G., Laurent, I., Cook, N., Woodward, L. & Inder, T. E. Growth rate of corpus callosum in very premature infants. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 26, 2685–2690 (2005).

  23. 23.

    Ghassabian, A. et al. Infant brain structures, executive function, and attention deficit/hyperactivity problems at preschool age. A prospective study. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 54, 96–104 (2013).

  24. 24.

    Handel, L. L. E. V. A. N. et al. Corpus callosum size in relation to motor performance in 9- to 10-year-old children with neonatal encephalopathy. Pediatr. Res. 63, 103 (2008).

  25. 25.

    Davies, M. W., Swaminathan, M., Chuang, S. L. & Betheras, F. R. Reference ranges for the linear dimensions of the intracranial ventricles in preterm neonates. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 82, F218–F223 (2000).

  26. 26.

    Huang, R., Namburete, A. & Noble, A. Learning to segment key clinical anatomical structures in fetal neurosonography informed by a region-based descriptor. J. Med. Imaging 5, 014007 (2018).

  27. 27.

    Beare, R. J. et al. Neonatal brain tissue classification with morphological adaptation and unified segmentation. Front. Neuroinform. 10, 12 (2016).

  28. 28.

    Qiu, W. et al. Automatic segmentation approach to extracting neonatal cerebral ventricles from 3D ultrasound images. Med. Image Anal. 35, 181–191 (2017).

  29. 29.

    Saunders, D. E., Thompson, C., Gunny, R., Jones, R. & Cox, T. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for paediatric neuroradiology. Pediatr. Radiol. 37, 789–797 (2007).

  30. 30.

    Rutherford, M. A. MRI of the neonatal brain [Internet]. http://www.mrineonatalbrain.com (2002).

  31. 31.

    Jacobs, S. E. et al. Cochrne review: Cooling for newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Evid. Based Child Health 5, 474–531 (2010).

Download references

Author information

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Correspondence to Michael Mills.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3