BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent postmortem studies in MS brain suggest that the severity of changes in DAWM can be measured by using quantitative MR imaging. This study aimed to characterize DAWM in vivo by using 4 quantitative MR imaging measures and to explore differences between MS disease types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 17 patients with chronic MS (7 PP, 10 SP), quantitative MR imaging was performed at 1.5T, yielding whole-brain voxelwise maps of T1, MTR, ADC, and FA. ROIs were placed to obtain values for DAWM, NAWM, and WM lesions. A general linear mixed-model analysis was used to compare T1, MTR, ADC, and FA between tissue types and disease types. RESULTS: Values of T1, MTR, ADC, and FA for DAWM were intermediate to those observed in NAWM and WM lesions. In patients with SPMS, DAWM was significantly different from both WM lesions and NAWM regarding all 4 measures, while in patients with PPMS, DAWM differed significantly from NAWM regarding T1, MTR, and FA and from lesions only regarding FA. Most interesting, DAWM differed between disease types: DAWM in patients with SPMS exhibited significantly higher T1 and lower MTR than did DAWM in patients with PPMS. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo T1, MTR, ADC, and FA reflect the variable severity of pathologic changes in DAWM in MS. Moreover, these quantitative MR imaging measures suggest that DAWM may differ between PPMS and SPMS.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent postmortem studies in MS brain suggest that the severity of changes in DAWM can be measured by using quantitative MR imaging. This study aimed to characterize DAWM in vivo by using 4 quantitative MR imaging measures and to explore differences between MS disease types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 17 patients with chronic MS (7 PP, 10 SP), quantitative MR imaging was performed at 1.5T, yielding whole-brain voxelwise maps of T1, MTR, ADC, and FA. ROIs were placed to obtain values for DAWM, NAWM, and WM lesions. A general linear mixed-model analysis was used to compare T1, MTR, ADC, and FA between tissue types and disease types. RESULTS: Values of T1, MTR, ADC, and FA for DAWM were intermediate to those observed in NAWM and WM lesions. In patients with SPMS, DAWM was significantly different from both WM lesions and NAWM regarding all 4 measures, while in patients with PPMS, DAWM differed significantly from NAWM regarding T1, MTR, and FA and from lesions only regarding FA. Most interesting, DAWM differed between disease types: DAWM in patients with SPMS exhibited significantly higher T1 and lower MTR than did DAWM in patients with PPMS. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo T1, MTR, ADC, and FA reflect the variable severity of pathologic changes in DAWM in MS. Moreover, these quantitative MR imaging measures suggest that DAWM may differ between PPMS and SPMS.
Authors: Hugo Vrenken; Jeroen J G Geurts; Dirk L Knol; L Noor van Dijk; Vincenzo Dattola; Bas Jasperse; Ronald A van Schijndel; Chris H Polman; Jonas A Castelijns; Frederik Barkhof; Petra J W Pouwels Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M A van Walderveen; W Kamphorst; P Scheltens; J H van Waesberghe; R Ravid; J Valk; C H Polman; F Barkhof Journal: Neurology Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Hugo Vrenken; Petra J W Pouwels; Jeroen J G Geurts; Dirk L Knol; Chris H Polman; Frederik Barkhof; Jonas A Castelijns Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J H van Waesberghe; W Kamphorst; C J De Groot; M A van Walderveen; J A Castelijns; R Ravid; G J Lycklama à Nijeholt; P van der Valk; C H Polman; A J Thompson; F Barkhof Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Klaus Schmierer; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Phil A Boulby; Francesco Scaravilli; Daniel R Altmann; Gareth J Barker; Paul S Tofts; David H Miller Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-12-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Klaus Schmierer; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Daniel J Tozer; Phil A Boulby; Harold G Parkes; Tarek A Yousry; Francesco Scaravilli; Gareth J Barker; Paul S Tofts; David H Miller Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Klaus Schmierer; Francesco Scaravilli; Daniel R Altmann; Gareth J Barker; David H Miller Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Daniel M Harrison; Navid Shiee; Pierre-Louis Bazin; Scott D Newsome; John N Ratchford; Dzung Pham; Peter A Calabresi; Daniel S Reich Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-08-12 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Varun Sethi; Govind Nair; Martina Absinta; Pascal Sati; Arun Venkataraman; Joan Ohayon; Tianxia Wu; Kelly Yang; Colin Shea; Blake E Dewey; Irene Cm Cortese; Daniel S Reich Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Hagen H Kitzler; Jason Su; Michael Zeineh; Cynthia Harper-Little; Andrew Leung; Marcelo Kremenchutzky; Sean C Deoni; Brian K Rutt Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Laura E Jonkman; Alexandra Lopez Soriano; Sandra Amor; Frederik Barkhof; Paul van der Valk; Hugo Vrenken; Jeroen J G Geurts Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 4.849