BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery (FLAIR) sequences are sensitive for detecting lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). More rapid fast-FLAIR imaging of the brain can be achieved by the concomitant use of half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo (HASTE-FLAIR) and echo-planar imaging (EPI-FLAIR). The present study was performed in a large cohort of subjects to assess and compare the number and volume of brain lesions detected by the fast-FLAIR, HASTE-FLAIR, and EPI-FLAIR sequences in patients with MS. METHODS: Fast-FLAIR, HASTE-FLAIR, and EPI-FLAIR sequences were obtained from 46 consecutive MS patients. Lesions seen on each type of sequence were counted and classified by consensus by two observers. Lesion volumes were measured using a semiautomated segmentation technique based on local thresholding. RESULTS: The quality of the fast-FLAIR images was significantly better than that of HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR images. Fast-FLAIR revealed significantly more lesions and higher lesion volumes than did HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR. A similar number of large lesions was detected by the three sequences, but HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR showed significantly fewer small and intermediate lesions than did fast-FLAIR. The number of lesions seen on HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR images was similar. CONCLUSION: HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR sequences revealed as many large MS lesions as fast-FLAIR. Because their acquisition times are only a fraction of that needed for fast-FLAIR sequences, they may be useful for making a rapid diagnosis of MS in uncooperative patients. Their reduced ability to detect smaller lesions indicates that they should not be used as a routine approach to imaging patients with MS.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery (FLAIR) sequences are sensitive for detecting lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). More rapid fast-FLAIR imaging of the brain can be achieved by the concomitant use of half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo (HASTE-FLAIR) and echo-planar imaging (EPI-FLAIR). The present study was performed in a large cohort of subjects to assess and compare the number and volume of brain lesions detected by the fast-FLAIR, HASTE-FLAIR, and EPI-FLAIR sequences in patients with MS. METHODS: Fast-FLAIR, HASTE-FLAIR, and EPI-FLAIR sequences were obtained from 46 consecutive MS patients. Lesions seen on each type of sequence were counted and classified by consensus by two observers. Lesion volumes were measured using a semiautomated segmentation technique based on local thresholding. RESULTS: The quality of the fast-FLAIR images was significantly better than that of HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR images. Fast-FLAIR revealed significantly more lesions and higher lesion volumes than did HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR. A similar number of large lesions was detected by the three sequences, but HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR showed significantly fewer small and intermediate lesions than did fast-FLAIR. The number of lesions seen on HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR images was similar. CONCLUSION: HASTE-FLAIR and EPI-FLAIR sequences revealed as many large MS lesions as fast-FLAIR. Because their acquisition times are only a fraction of that needed for fast-FLAIR sequences, they may be useful for making a rapid diagnosis of MS in uncooperative patients. Their reduced ability to detect smaller lesions indicates that they should not be used as a routine approach to imaging patients with MS.
Authors: M Filippi; M A Rocca; C Gasperini; M P Sormani; S Bastianello; M A Horsfield; C Pozzilli; G Comi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Filippi; T A Yousry; H Alkadhi; M Stehling; M A Horsfield; R Voltz Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: C M Poser; D W Paty; L Scheinberg; W I McDonald; F A Davis; G C Ebers; K P Johnson; W A Sibley; D H Silberberg; W W Tourtellotte Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1983-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; T Hirai; S Hamatake; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; M Takahashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Filippi; M A Horsfield; M Rovaris; T Yousry; M A Rocca; C Baratti; S Bressi; G Comi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Cianfoni; M G M Martin; J Du; J R Hesselink; S G Imbesi; W G Bradley; G M Bydder Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.825