BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The spinal cord is a site of predilection for MS lesions. While diffusion tensor imaging is useful for the study of anisotropic systems such as WM tracts, it is of more limited utility in tissues with more isotropic microstructures (on the length scales studied with diffusion MR imaging) such as gray matter. In contrast, diffusional kurtosis imaging, which measures both Gaussian and non-Gaussian properties of water diffusion, provides more biomarkers of both anisotropic and isotropic structural changes. The aim of this study was to investigate the cervical spinal cord of patients with MS and to characterize lesional and normal-appearing gray matter and WM damage by using diffusional kurtosis imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients (13 women, mean age = 41.1 ± 10.7 years) and 16 controls (7 women, mean age = 35.6 ± 11.2-years) underwent MR imaging of the cervical spinal cord on a 3T scanner (T2 TSE, T1 magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition of gradient echo, diffusional kurtosis imaging, T2 fast low-angle shot). Fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and mean kurtosis were measured on the whole cord and in normal-appearing gray matter and WM. RESULTS: Spinal cord T2-hyperintense lesions were identified in 18 patients. Whole spinal cord fractional anisotropy and mean kurtosis (P = .0009, P = .003), WM fractional anisotropy (P = .01), and gray matter mean kurtosis (P = .006) were significantly decreased, and whole spinal cord mean diffusivity (P = .009) was increased in patients compared with controls. Mean spinal cord area was significantly lower in patients (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Diffusional kurtosis imaging of the spinal cord can provide a more comprehensive characterization of lesions and normal-appearing WM and gray matter damage in patients with MS. Diffusional kurtosis imaging can provide additional and complementary information to DTI on spinal cord pathology.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The spinal cord is a site of predilection for MS lesions. While diffusion tensor imaging is useful for the study of anisotropic systems such as WM tracts, it is of more limited utility in tissues with more isotropic microstructures (on the length scales studied with diffusion MR imaging) such as gray matter. In contrast, diffusional kurtosis imaging, which measures both Gaussian and non-Gaussian properties of water diffusion, provides more biomarkers of both anisotropic and isotropic structural changes. The aim of this study was to investigate the cervical spinal cord of patients with MS and to characterize lesional and normal-appearing gray matter and WM damage by using diffusional kurtosis imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients (13 women, mean age = 41.1 ± 10.7 years) and 16 controls (7 women, mean age = 35.6 ± 11.2-years) underwent MR imaging of the cervical spinal cord on a 3T scanner (T2 TSE, T1 magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition of gradient echo, diffusional kurtosis imaging, T2 fast low-angle shot). Fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and mean kurtosis were measured on the whole cord and in normal-appearing gray matter and WM. RESULTS: Spinal cord T2-hyperintense lesions were identified in 18 patients. Whole spinal cord fractional anisotropy and mean kurtosis (P = .0009, P = .003), WM fractional anisotropy (P = .01), and gray matter mean kurtosis (P = .006) were significantly decreased, and whole spinal cord mean diffusivity (P = .009) was increased in patients compared with controls. Mean spinal cord area was significantly lower in patients (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Diffusional kurtosis imaging of the spinal cord can provide a more comprehensive characterization of lesions and normal-appearing WM and gray matter damage in patients with MS. Diffusional kurtosis imaging can provide additional and complementary information to DTI on spinal cord pathology.
Authors: N A Losseff; S L Webb; J I O'Riordan; R Page; L Wang; G J Barker; P S Tofts; W I McDonald; D H Miller; A J Thompson Journal: Brain Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Jens H Jensen; Maria F Falangola; Caixia Hu; Ali Tabesh; Otto Rapalino; Calvin Lo; Joseph A Helpern Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Joseph C J Bot; Erwin L A Blezer; Wouter Kamphorst; Geert J Lycklama A Nijeholt; Herman J Ader; Jonas A Castelijns; Klaas Nicolay Ig; Elisabeth Bergers; Rivka Ravid; Chris Polman; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-09-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patrick Freund; Claudia Wheeler-Kingshott; Jonathan Jackson; David Miller; Alan Thompson; Olga Ciccarelli Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.312
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: M Bester; J H Jensen; J S Babb; A Tabesh; L Miles; J Herbert; R I Grossman; M Inglese Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Christian Enzinger; Frederik Barkhof; Olga Ciccarelli; Massimo Filippi; Ludwig Kappos; Maria A Rocca; Stefan Ropele; Àlex Rovira; Torben Schneider; Nicola de Stefano; Hugo Vrenken; Claudia Wheeler-Kingshott; Jens Wuerfel; Franz Fazekas Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: S Galler; J-P Stellmann; K L Young; D Kutzner; C Heesen; J Fiehler; S Siemonsen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Tsen-Hsuan Lin; Peng Sun; Mitchell Hallman; Fay C Hwang; Michael Wallendorf; Wilson Z Ray; William M Spees; Sheng-Kwei Song Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Tsen-Hsuan Lin; William M Spees; Chia-Wen Chiang; Kathryn Trinkaus; Anne H Cross; Sheng-Kwei Song Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: V Panara; R Navarra; P A Mattei; E Piccirilli; A R Cotroneo; N Papinutto; R G Henry; A Uncini; M Caulo Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Allan R Martin; Izabela Aleksanderek; Julien Cohen-Adad; Zenovia Tarmohamed; Lindsay Tetreault; Nathaniel Smith; David W Cadotte; Adrian Crawley; Howard Ginsberg; David J Mikulis; Michael G Fehlings Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 4.881