In gratitude of the loyal support of our members, the CNS is offering complimentary 2021 Annual Meeting registration to all members! Learn more.

  • Diffusion Tensor Imaging as a Biomarker to Identify Individuals Who Will Benefit from Cervical Decompression at 12 Months

    Final Number:
    583

    Authors:
    Saman Shabani BS MD; Ha Nguyen MD; Matthew Budde PhD; Avinash Rao BS; Brian Schmit PhD; Marjorie C. Wang MD; Shekar N. Kurpad MD PhD

    Study Design:
    Clinical Trial

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2017 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction. Previous studies have shown diffusion tensor imaging might be a better biomarker compared to T2 signal intensity. There is currently no viable biomarker to identify CSM patients who will improve from surgical decompression. We examined fractional anisotropy (FA) threshold in the cervical spinal cord in a large prospective series of patients as a potential biomarker for clinical improvement following surgical decompression for CSM patients.

    Methods: A prospective analysis of 48 patients who had clinical follow up at 12-months after surgery was performed. Preoperative FA was measured at the level of maximum compression (LMC) and cervical 1-2 segment regions. 13 (27%) patients were identified who declined in their modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) at 12-month post-operatively compare to pre-operation. Receiver-Operation Characteristic (ROC) Curve was used to determine the threshold for the FA values.

    Results: Using ROC curve, we determined that LMC FA (P=0.014) is more accurate compared to FA at C1-2 region (P=0.139) as a biomarker to identify individuals who will benefit from decompression surgery. LMC FA threshold value of 0.528 appeared to separate patients who will decline versus stay stable/improve at 12-months post-operatively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.738 with sensitivity of 0.769 and specificity of 0.633 for LMC FA. The AUD was 0.356 with sensitivity of 0.570 and specificity of 0.433 for FA at C1-2 region.

    Conclusions: In this larger prospective study of CSM patients, FA value at the LMC is a more sensitive/specific test compared to LMC C1-2 region to predict surgical outcomes at 12-month. FA threshold value of 0.528 at LMC may be used a biomarker in conjunction with existing clinical and radiologic assessments as an integral part of diagnosis and prognostication in patients with CSM and might help in the decision regarding surgical intervention.

    Patient Care: FA threshold value of 0.528 at LMC can be used to separate individuals with CSM who will benefit from surgical decompression at 12-months. Therefore, surgical intervention can be tailored more specifically to individuals who will benefit from it.

    Learning Objectives: 1. To determine the usefulness of fractional anisotropy (FA) as a biomarker for the severity of CSM 2. To explore using objective biomarkers to predict improvement after decompressive surgery. 3. To compare objective vs. subjective methods of monitoring CSM 4. To understand the importance of DTI as a noninvasive biomarker

    References: 1. Vedantam A, Eckardt G, Wang MC, Schmit BD, Kurpad SN. Clinical correlates of high cervical fractional anisotropy in acute cervical spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg. 2015;83:824-828 2. Baron EM, Young WF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a brief review of its pathophysiology, clinical course, and diagnosis. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:S35-41. 3. Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2- weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity 4. Wen CY, Cui JL, Liu HS, et al. Is diffusion anisotropy a biomarker for disease severity and surgical prognosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Radiology. 2014;270:197–204 5. Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:236- 251.

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy