OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative sensitivity of MR scanning for multiple sclerosis (MS) at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0 T using identical acquisition conditions, as is typical of multicenter clinical trials. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects with MS were scanned at 1.5 T and 3.0 T using fast spin echo, and T(1)-weighted SPGR with and without gadolinium contrast injections. Image data, blinded to field strength, were analyzed using automated segmentation and lesion counting. RESULTS: Relative to scanning at 1.5 T, the 3.0 T scans showed a 21% increase in the number of detected contrast enhancing lesions, a 30% increase in enhancing lesion volume and a 10% increase in total lesion volume. DISCUSSION: The improved detection ability using high-field MR imaging is prominent even when sequence parameters are optimized around the midfield units. Multicenter trials using both 1.5 T and 3.0 T instruments may be affected by these sensitivity differences.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative sensitivity of MR scanning for multiple sclerosis (MS) at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0 T using identical acquisition conditions, as is typical of multicenter clinical trials. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects with MS were scanned at 1.5 T and 3.0 T using fast spin echo, and T(1)-weighted SPGR with and without gadolinium contrast injections. Image data, blinded to field strength, were analyzed using automated segmentation and lesion counting. RESULTS: Relative to scanning at 1.5 T, the 3.0 T scans showed a 21% increase in the number of detected contrast enhancing lesions, a 30% increase in enhancing lesion volume and a 10% increase in total lesion volume. DISCUSSION: The improved detection ability using high-field MR imaging is prominent even when sequence parameters are optimized around the midfield units. Multicenter trials using both 1.5 T and 3.0 T instruments may be affected by these sensitivity differences.
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M P Wattjes; M Harzheim; C K Kuhl; J Gieseke; S Schmidt; L Klotz; T Klockgether; H H Schild; G G Lutterbey Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J M Stankiewicz; M Neema; D C Alsop; B C Healy; A Arora; G J Buckle; T Chitnis; C R G Guttmann; D Hackney; R Bakshi Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: C C Quattrocchi; A Cherubini; G Luccichenti; M G Grasso; U Nocentini; B Beomonte Zobel; U Sabatini Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Rohit Bakshi; Alan J Thompson; Maria A Rocca; Daniel Pelletier; Vincent Dousset; Frederik Barkhof; Matilde Inglese; Charles R G Guttmann; Mark A Horsfield; Massimo Filippi Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 44.182