BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current MR imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS) do not specify the magnetic field strength. The aim of this study was to investigate whether different MR imaging field strengths, specifically high-field MR imaging, have an impact on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of MS, according to MR imaging and diagnostic criteria. METHODS: In a prospective intraindividual comparative study, we examined 40 patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS) consecutively with a 1.5 T and 3T MR imaging system, including axial sections of T2 turbo spin-echo, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, and T1 spin-echo, before and after injection of gadolinium-diethylene-triaminepentaacetic acid. Constant resolution parameters were used for both field strengths. High-signal-intensity white matter lesions with a size of >3 mm were counted and categorized according to their anatomic location in infratentorial, callosal, juxtacortical, periventricular, and other white matter areas. Assessment of the fulfilled Barkhof MR imaging and McDonald diagnostic criteria was made separately for both field strengths in every patient. RESULTS:Eleven patients fulfilled more MR imaging criteria at 3T. Two of these patients fulfilled the criterion of dissemination in space (DIS) according to the first definition of McDonald criteria, which is based on imaging criteria alone. Another patient had DIS only at 3T, according to the second definition of the McDonald criteria including CSF parameters. CONCLUSION: MR field strength, specifically high-field MR imaging, has a substantial influence on the classification of patients with CIS according to imaging and a mild influence on the classification according diagnostic criteria for MS, leading to consequences for prognostic classification, imaging guidelines, and clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current MR imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS) do not specify the magnetic field strength. The aim of this study was to investigate whether different MR imaging field strengths, specifically high-field MR imaging, have an impact on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of MS, according to MR imaging and diagnostic criteria. METHODS: In a prospective intraindividual comparative study, we examined 40 patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS) consecutively with a 1.5 T and 3T MR imaging system, including axial sections of T2 turbo spin-echo, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, and T1 spin-echo, before and after injection of gadolinium-diethylene-triaminepentaacetic acid. Constant resolution parameters were used for both field strengths. High-signal-intensity white matter lesions with a size of >3 mm were counted and categorized according to their anatomic location in infratentorial, callosal, juxtacortical, periventricular, and other white matter areas. Assessment of the fulfilled Barkhof MR imaging and McDonald diagnostic criteria was made separately for both field strengths in every patient. RESULTS: Eleven patients fulfilled more MR imaging criteria at 3T. Two of these patients fulfilled the criterion of dissemination in space (DIS) according to the first definition of McDonald criteria, which is based on imaging criteria alone. Another patient had DIS only at 3T, according to the second definition of the McDonald criteria including CSF parameters. CONCLUSION: MR field strength, specifically high-field MR imaging, has a substantial influence on the classification of patients with CIS according to imaging and a mild influence on the classification according diagnostic criteria for MS, leading to consequences for prognostic classification, imaging guidelines, and clinical trials.
Authors: L D Jacobs; R W Beck; J H Simon; R P Kinkel; C M Brownscheidle; T J Murray; N A Simonian; P J Slasor; A W Sandrock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Filippi; J H van Waesberghe; M A Horsfield; S Bressi; C Gasperini; T A Yousry; M L Gawne-Cain; S P Morrissey; M A Rocca; F Barkhof; G J Lycklama à Nijeholt; S Bastianello; D H Miller Journal: Neurology Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: G Comi; M Filippi; F Barkhof; L Durelli; G Edan; O Fernández; H Hartung; P Seeldrayers; P S Sørensen; M Rovaris; V Martinelli; O R Hommes Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-05-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Frederik Barkhof; Mara Rocca; Gordon Francis; Jan-Hein T M Van Waesberghe; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Otto R Hommes; Hans-Peter Hartung; Luca Durelli; Gilles Edan; Oscar Fernández; Pierette Seeldrayers; Per Sørensen; Simon Margrie; Marco Rovaris; Giancarlo Comi; Massimo Filippi Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: P D Molyneux; N Tubridy; G J Parker; G J Barker; D G MacManus; P S Tofts; I F Moseley; D H Miller Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M D Keiper; R I Grossman; J A Hirsch; L Bolinger; I L Ott; L J Mannon; C P Langlotz; D L Kolson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nancy L Sicotte; Rhonda R Voskuhl; Seth Bouvier; Rochelle Klutch; Mark S Cohen; John C Mazziotta Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.016
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: 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: Heather L Gray-Edwards; Nouha Salibi; Eleanor M Josephson; Judith A Hudson; Nancy R Cox; Ashley N Randle; Victoria J McCurdy; Allison M Bradbury; Diane U Wilson; Ronald J Beyers; Thomas S Denney; Douglas R Martin Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Augustin Lecler; C Bouzad; R Deschamps; F Maizeroi; J C Sadik; A Gueguen; O Gout; H Picard; J Savatovsky Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Michael Harzheim; Götz G Lutterbey; Manuela Bogdanow; Stephan Schmidt; Hans H Schild; Frank Träber Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2007-11-03 Impact factor: 2.804
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