OBJECTIVES: Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) may have the potential to depict the perivenous extent of white matter lesions (WMLs) in multiple sclerosis (MS). We aimed to assess the discriminatory value of the "central vein sign" (CVS). METHODS: In a 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study, 28 WMLs in 14 patients with at least one circumscribed lesion >5 mm and not more than eight non-confluent lesions >3 mm were prospectively included. Only WMLs in FLAIR images with a maximum diameter of >5 mm were correlated to their SWI equivalent for CVS evaluation. RESULTS: Five patients fulfilled the revised McDonald criteria for MS and nine patients were given alternative diagnoses. Nineteen MS-WMLs and nine non-MS-WMLs >5 mm were detected. Consensus reading found a central vein in 16 out of 19 MS-WMLs (84 %) and in one out of nine non-MS-WMLs (11 %), respectively. The CVS proved to be a highly significant discriminator (P < 0.001) between MS-WMLs and non-MS-WMLs with a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy of 84 %, 89 %, 94 %, 73 % and 86 %, respectively. Inter-rater agreement was good (κ = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Even though the CVS is not exclusively found in MS-WMLs, SWI may be a useful adjunct in patients with possible MS. KEY POINTS: • MRI continues to yield further information concerning MS lesions. • SWI adds diagnostic information in patients with possible MS. • The "central vein sign" was predominantly seen in MS lesions. • The "central vein sign" helps discriminate between MS and non-MS lesions.
OBJECTIVES: Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) may have the potential to depict the perivenous extent of white matter lesions (WMLs) in multiple sclerosis (MS). We aimed to assess the discriminatory value of the "central vein sign" (CVS). METHODS: In a 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study, 28 WMLs in 14 patients with at least one circumscribed lesion >5 mm and not more than eight non-confluent lesions >3 mm were prospectively included. Only WMLs in FLAIR images with a maximum diameter of >5 mm were correlated to their SWI equivalent for CVS evaluation. RESULTS: Five patients fulfilled the revised McDonald criteria for MS and nine patients were given alternative diagnoses. Nineteen MS-WMLs and nine non-MS-WMLs >5 mm were detected. Consensus reading found a central vein in 16 out of 19 MS-WMLs (84 %) and in one out of nine non-MS-WMLs (11 %), respectively. The CVS proved to be a highly significant discriminator (P < 0.001) between MS-WMLs and non-MS-WMLs with a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy of 84 %, 89 %, 94 %, 73 % and 86 %, respectively. Inter-rater agreement was good (κ = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Even though the CVS is not exclusively found in MS-WMLs, SWI may be a useful adjunct in patients with possible MS. KEY POINTS: • MRI continues to yield further information concerning MS lesions. • SWI adds diagnostic information in patients with possible MS. • The "central vein sign" was predominantly seen in MS lesions. • The "central vein sign" helps discriminate between MS and non-MS lesions.
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: F E de Leeuw; J C de Groot; E Achten; M Oudkerk; L M Ramos; R Heijboer; A Hofman; J Jolles; J van Gijn; M M Breteler Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Emma C Tallantyre; Paul S Morgan; Jennifer E Dixon; Ali Al-Radaideh; Matthew J Brookes; Nikos Evangelou; Peter G Morris Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Brenda Banwell; Michel Clanet; Jeffrey A Cohen; Massimo Filippi; Kazuo Fujihara; Eva Havrdova; Michael Hutchinson; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Xavier Montalban; Paul O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: W I McDonald; A Compston; G Edan; D Goodkin; H P Hartung; F D Lublin; H F McFarland; D W Paty; C H Polman; S C Reingold; M Sandberg-Wollheim; W Sibley; A Thompson; S van den Noort; B Y Weinshenker; J S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Assunta Dal-Bianco; Simon Hametner; Günther Grabner; Melanie Schernthaner; Claudia Kronnerwetter; Andreas Reitner; Clemens Vass; Karl Kircher; Eduard Auff; Fritz Leutmezer; Karl Vass; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Iris D Kilsdonk; Mike P Wattjes; Alexandra Lopez-Soriano; Joost P A Kuijer; Marcus C de Jong; Wolter L de Graaf; Mandy M A Conijn; Chris H Polman; Peter R Luijten; Jeroen J G Geurts; Mirjam I Geerlings; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M A Clarke; D Pareto; L Pessini-Ferreira; G Arrambide; M Alberich; F Crescenzo; S Cappelle; M Tintoré; J Sastre-Garriga; C Auger; X Montalban; N Evangelou; À Rovira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Refaat E Gabr; Amol S Pednekar; Arash Kamali; John A Lincoln; Flavia M Nelson; Jerry S Wolinsky; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ilena C George; Pascal Sati; Martina Absinta; Irene Cm Cortese; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Colin D Shea; Daniel S Reich Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 6.312