The cervical spinal cord is constrained between the foramen magnum and the lower border of the C7 vertebral body and the thoracic spinal cord from the upper border of the T1 to the lower border of the T12 vertebral body, using a bounding box. Starting from the midsagittal image a coarse region of interest (ROI) is then placed and by means of a level set evolution is allowed to evolve (expand/contract)
until the spinal cord AZD8055 manufacturer boundary is found (Figs 3B and 4B) and extracted from the image (Figs 3C and 4C). The process is repeated for the para-sagittal slices until all boundaries defining the spinal cord are found. From all the boundaries a 3D spinal cord surface for each segment is produced (Figs 3D and 4D), whose volume is then calculated. The whole procedure takes about 15 minutes of postprocessing time. As previously described2008 inter- and intraobserver variability for this technique was less than or equal to 3%. Also when compared to manual measurement/outlining, considered as ground truth, there was almost perfect correlation of R2 = .978 making this technique suitable for clinical use. HTLV-I proviral load was determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction, as described previously.1998 The HTLV-I proviral DNA load was calculated by the following
formula: copy number of HTLV-I (pX) per 100 cells = (copy number of pX)/(copy number of β-actin/2) × 100. Data were summarized as mean +/– standard deviation. The Kolomogorov–Smirnov Navitoclax statistic was used to test for normality and the unpaired t-test or Mann–Whitney test was used to assess differences between groups as appropriate. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between spinal cord volumes and clinical parameters. Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. Statistical analysis was performed using Prism version 5 (GraphPad Software, Inc. La Jolla, CA). Subjects with definite HAM/TSP showed significantly 上海皓元 lower spinal cord volumes compared to HVs (Figs 5 and 6). The mean thoracic cord volume for subjects with HAM/TSP was 8,774 ± 2,218 mm3 compared to 14,050 ± 980
mm3 for HVs, representing a 38% reduction in mean thoracic cord volume in subjects with HAM/TSP (P = .0079). Spinal cord atrophy was not limited to the thoracic cord. The mean cervical cord volume for subjects with HAM/TSP was 6,589 ± 897 mm3 compared to 9,721 ± 797 mm3 for HVs, representing a 32% reduction in mean cervical cord volume (P = .0079). The ratio of cervical to thoracic cord volumes for HAM/TSP was .78 compared to .69 for HVs, reflecting the relatively greater volume loss in the thoracic cord of subjects with HAM/TSP. As a group, subjects with HTLV-I infection not meeting criteria for definite HAM/TSP showed a mean cervical cord volume of 9,075 ± 2,095 mm3 and a mean thoracic cord volume of 12,788 ± 3,562 mm3. Although these cord volumes did not differ significantly from those of HVs (P = .56 and P = .