OBJECTIVE: Assess the relationship between spinal cord T2 hyperintense lesions and clinical status in multiple sclerosis (MS) with 1.5 and 3 T MRI. METHODS: Whole cord T2-weighted fast spin-echo MRI was performed in 32 MS patients [Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score (mean+/-SD: 2+/-1.9), range 0-6.5]. Protocols at 1.5 T and 3 T were optimized and matched on voxel size. RESULTS: Moderate correlations were found between whole cord lesion volume and EDSS score at 1.5 T (r(s)=.36, p=0.04), but not at 3 T (r(s)=0.13, p=0.46). Pyramidal Functional System Score (FSS) correlated with thoracic T2 lesion number (r(s)=.46, p=0.01) and total spinal cord lesion number (r(s)=0.37, p=0.04) and volume (r(s)=0.37, p=0.04) at 1.5 T. Bowel/bladder FSS correlated with T2 lesion volume and number in the cervical, thoracic, and total spine at 1.5 T (r(s) 0.40-0.57, all p<0.05). These MRI-FSS correlations were non-significant at 3 T. However, these correlation coefficients did not differ significantly between platforms (Choi's test p>0.05). Correlations between whole cord lesion volume and timed 25-foot walk were non-significant at 1.5 T and 3 T (p>0.05). Lesion number and volume did not differ between MRI platforms in the MS group (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of higher field MRI strength, the link between spinal lesions and MS disability remains weak. The 1.5 T and 3 T protocols yielded similar results for many comparisons.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the relationship between spinal cord T2 hyperintense lesions and clinical status in multiple sclerosis (MS) with 1.5 and 3 T MRI. METHODS: Whole cord T2-weighted fast spin-echo MRI was performed in 32 MSpatients [Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score (mean+/-SD: 2+/-1.9), range 0-6.5]. Protocols at 1.5 T and 3 T were optimized and matched on voxel size. RESULTS: Moderate correlations were found between whole cord lesion volume and EDSS score at 1.5 T (r(s)=.36, p=0.04), but not at 3 T (r(s)=0.13, p=0.46). Pyramidal Functional System Score (FSS) correlated with thoracic T2 lesion number (r(s)=.46, p=0.01) and total spinal cord lesion number (r(s)=0.37, p=0.04) and volume (r(s)=0.37, p=0.04) at 1.5 T. Bowel/bladder FSS correlated with T2 lesion volume and number in the cervical, thoracic, and total spine at 1.5 T (r(s) 0.40-0.57, all p<0.05). These MRI-FSS correlations were non-significant at 3 T. However, these correlation coefficients did not differ significantly between platforms (Choi's test p>0.05). Correlations between whole cord lesion volume and timed 25-foot walk were non-significant at 1.5 T and 3 T (p>0.05). Lesion number and volume did not differ between MRI platforms in the MS group (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of higher field MRI strength, the link between spinal lesions and MS disability remains weak. The 1.5 T and 3 T protocols yielded similar results for many comparisons.
Authors: M Filippi; M Bozzali; M A Horsfield; M A Rocca; M P Sormani; G Iannucci; B Colombo; G Comi Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-01-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: E Bergers; J C J Bot; C J A De Groot; C H Polman; G J Lycklama à Nijeholt; J A Castelijns; P van der Valk; F Barkhof Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-12-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: G J Nijeholt; E Bergers; W Kamphorst; J Bot; K Nicolay; J A Castelijns; J H van Waesberghe; R Ravid; C H Polman; F Barkhof Journal: Brain Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: D Kidd; J W Thorpe; A J Thompson; B E Kendall; I F Moseley; D G MacManus; W I McDonald; D H Miller Journal: Neurology Date: 1993-12 Impact factor: 9.910
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: J P Mottershead; K Schmierer; M Clemence; J S Thornton; F Scaravilli; G J Barker; P S Tofts; J Newcombe; M L Cuzner; R J Ordidge; W I McDonald; D H Miller Journal: J Neurol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Leonard H Verhey; Helen M Branson; Monica Makhija; Manohar Shroff; Brenda Banwell Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Àlex Rovira; Mike P Wattjes; Mar Tintoré; Carmen Tur; Tarek A Yousry; Maria P Sormani; Nicola De Stefano; Massimo Filippi; Cristina Auger; Maria A Rocca; Frederik Barkhof; Franz Fazekas; Ludwig Kappos; Chris Polman; David Miller; Xavier Montalban Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: J Hodel; P Besson; O Outteryck; H Zéphir; D Ducreux; A Monnet; D Chéchin; M Zins; M Rodallec; J P Pruvo; P Vermersch; X Leclerc Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: James M Stankiewicz; Bonnie I Glanz; Brian C Healy; Ashish Arora; Mohit Neema; Ralph H B Benedict; Zachary D Guss; Shahamat Tauhid; Guy J Buckle; Maria K Houtchens; Samia J Khoury; Howard L Weiner; Charles R G Guttmann; Rohit Bakshi Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.486