BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the sensitivity in the detection of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions by using double inversion recovery (DIR), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (T2 TSE) MR imaging at 3T. METHODS: Seventeen patients presenting with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) suggestive of MS, 9 patients with definite MS, and 6 healthy control subjects were included. Imaging was performed on a 3T MR system using DIR, FLAIR, and T2 TSE sequences. Lesions were counted and classified according to 5 anatomic regions: infratentorial, periventricular, deep white matter, juxtacortical, and mixed white matter-gray matter. The sensitivity at DIR was compared with the corresponding sensitivity at FLAIR and T2 TSE sequence. The contrast between lesions and normal-appearing gray matter, normal-appearing white matter, and CSF was determined for all sequences. RESULTS: Because of higher lesion-white matter contrast, the DIR showed a higher number of lesions compared with the FLAIR (7% gain, P = 0.04) and the T2 TSE (15% gain, P = 0.01). The higher sensitivity was also significant for the infratentorial region compared with the FLAIR (56% gain, P = 0.02) and the T2 TSE (44% gain, P = 0.02). Compared with the FLAIR, no significant changes of the lesion load measurements were observed in the supratentorial brain: slightly higher numbers of periventricular and mixed gray matter-white matter lesions on the DIR were counterbalanced by a slightly reduced sensitivity regarding juxtacortical lesions. CONCLUSION: DIR brain imaging at 3T provides the highest sensitivity in the detection of MS lesions especially in the infratentorial region.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the sensitivity in the detection of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions by using double inversion recovery (DIR), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (T2 TSE) MR imaging at 3T. METHODS: Seventeen patients presenting with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) suggestive of MS, 9 patients with definite MS, and 6 healthy control subjects were included. Imaging was performed on a 3T MR system using DIR, FLAIR, and T2 TSE sequences. Lesions were counted and classified according to 5 anatomic regions: infratentorial, periventricular, deep white matter, juxtacortical, and mixed white matter-gray matter. The sensitivity at DIR was compared with the corresponding sensitivity at FLAIR and T2 TSE sequence. The contrast between lesions and normal-appearing gray matter, normal-appearing white matter, and CSF was determined for all sequences. RESULTS: Because of higher lesion-white matter contrast, the DIR showed a higher number of lesions compared with the FLAIR (7% gain, P = 0.04) and the T2 TSE (15% gain, P = 0.01). The higher sensitivity was also significant for the infratentorial region compared with the FLAIR (56% gain, P = 0.02) and the T2 TSE (44% gain, P = 0.02). Compared with the FLAIR, no significant changes of the lesion load measurements were observed in the supratentorial brain: slightly higher numbers of periventricular and mixed gray matter-white matter lesions on the DIR were counterbalanced by a slightly reduced sensitivity regarding juxtacortical lesions. CONCLUSION: DIR brain imaging at 3T provides the highest sensitivity in the detection of MS lesions especially in the infratentorial region.
Authors: K Turetschek; P Wunderbaldinger; A A Bankier; T Zontsich; O Graf; R Mallek; K Hittmair Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1998 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Juan He; Matilde Inglese; Belinda S Y Li; James S Babb; Robert I Grossman; Oded Gonen Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-11-04 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Gilles Edan; Massimo Filippi; Hans-Peter Hartung; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Luanne M Metz; Henry F McFarland; Paul W O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Brian G Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Bruno P Soares; Samuel G Porter; Amit M Saindane; Seena Dehkharghani; Nilesh K Desai Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Caterina Mainero; T Benner; A Radding; A van der Kouwe; R Jensen; B R Rosen; R P Kinkel Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jan-Mendelt Tillema; Stephen D Weigand; Jay Mandrekar; Yunhong Shu; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Istvan Pirko; John D Port Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 6.312
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: 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: Meredith Metcalf; Duan Xu; Darin T Okuda; Lucas Carvajal; Radhika Srinivasan; Douglas A C Kelley; Pratik Mukherjee; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron; Daniel Pelletier Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Birgit Simon; Stephan Schmidt; Carsten Lukas; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Dirk L Knol; Winfried A Willinek; Jeroen J G Geurts; Hans H Schild; Frederik Barkhof; Mike P Wattjes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 5.315