I Riederer1, D C Karampinos2, M Settles2, C Preibisch3, J S Bauer4, J F Kleine4, M Mühlau5, C Zimmer4. 1. From the Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (I.R., C.P., J.S.B., J.F.K., C.Z.) Isabelle.riederer@tum.de. 2. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (D.C.K., M.S.). 3. From the Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (I.R., C.P., J.S.B., J.F.K., C.Z.) Neuroimaging Center at the Technische Universität München (C.P., M.M.). 4. From the Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (I.R., C.P., J.S.B., J.F.K., C.Z.). 5. Neuroimaging Center at the Technische Universität München (C.P., M.M.) Department of Neurology (M.M.), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging plays an important role in diagnosing MS and other related inflammatory diseases; however, imaging of the spinal cord is still challenging. We hypothesized that a 3D double inversion recovery sequence for cervical spinal cord imaging would be more sensitive in detecting inflammatory lesions than a conventional 2D T2-weighted TSE sequence at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On a 3T MR imaging scanner, we examined 30 patients with suspected or established MS (MS, n = 16; clinically isolated syndrome, n = 12; isolated myelitis, n = 2) and 10 healthy controls. Newly developed 3D double inversion recovery and conventional 2D axial and sagittal T2-weighted TSE images of the cervical spinal cord were acquired. Two blinded neuroradiologists independently assessed the scans in pseudorandomized order for lesion numbers and rated lesion visibility and overall image quality on 5-point scales. A subsequent consensus reading delivered definite lesion counts. Standardized contrast-to-noise ratios were calculated in representative lesions of each patient. RESULTS: Overall, 28% more lesions could be detected with 3D double inversion recovery than with conventional T2WI (119 versus 93, P < .002). On average, the standardized contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher (P < .001) in double inversion recovery than in T2WI. Lesion visibility was rated significantly higher (P < .001) in double inversion recovery compared with T2WI despite lower image quality. CONCLUSIONS: The novel 3D double inversion recovery sequence allowed better detection of lesions in MS and related inflammatory diseases of the cervical spinal cord, compared with conventional 2D T2WI.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging plays an important role in diagnosing MS and other related inflammatory diseases; however, imaging of the spinal cord is still challenging. We hypothesized that a 3D double inversion recovery sequence for cervical spinal cord imaging would be more sensitive in detecting inflammatory lesions than a conventional 2D T2-weighted TSE sequence at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On a 3T MR imaging scanner, we examined 30 patients with suspected or established MS (MS, n = 16; clinically isolated syndrome, n = 12; isolated myelitis, n = 2) and 10 healthy controls. Newly developed 3D double inversion recovery and conventional 2D axial and sagittal T2-weighted TSE images of the cervical spinal cord were acquired. Two blinded neuroradiologists independently assessed the scans in pseudorandomized order for lesion numbers and rated lesion visibility and overall image quality on 5-point scales. A subsequent consensus reading delivered definite lesion counts. Standardized contrast-to-noise ratios were calculated in representative lesions of each patient. RESULTS: Overall, 28% more lesions could be detected with 3D double inversion recovery than with conventional T2WI (119 versus 93, P < .002). On average, the standardized contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher (P < .001) in double inversion recovery than in T2WI. Lesion visibility was rated significantly higher (P < .001) in double inversion recovery compared with T2WI despite lower image quality. CONCLUSIONS: The novel 3D double inversion recovery sequence allowed better detection of lesions in MS and related inflammatory diseases of the cervical spinal cord, compared with conventional 2D T2WI.
Authors: René L M Rivero; Enedina M L Oliveira; Denis B Bichuetti; Alberto A Gabbai; Roberto G Nogueira; Nitamar Abdala Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: M P Wattjes; G G Lutterbey; J Gieseke; F Träber; L Klotz; S Schmidt; H H Schild Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Francesca Bagnato; Vasiliki N Ikonomidou; Peter van Gelderen; Sungyoung Auh; Jailan Hanafy; Fredric K Cantor; Joan Ohayon; Nancy Richert; Jeff Duyn Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Jeroen J G Geurts; Petra J W Pouwels; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Chris H Polman; Frederik Barkhof; Jonas A Castelijns Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carsten Lukas; Madeleine H Sombekke; Barbara Bellenberg; Horst K Hahn; Veronica Popescu; Kerstin Bendfeldt; Ernst W Radue; Achim Gass; Stefan J Borgwardt; Ludwig Kappos; Yvonne Naegelin; Dirk L Knol; Chris H Polman; Jeroen J G Geurts; Frederik Barkhof; Hugo Vrenken Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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: Alexandra S Gersing; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Ursula Heilmeier; Gabby B Joseph; Luca Facchetti; Martin Kretzschmar; John A Lynch; Charles E McCulloch; Michael C Nevitt; Lynne S Steinbach; Thomas M Link Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: P Alcaide-Leon; A Pauranik; L Alshafai; S Rawal; J Oh; W Montanera; G Leung; A Bharatha Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S C Foreman; A S Gersing; C E von Schacky; G B Joseph; J Neumann; N E Lane; C E McCulloch; M C Nevitt; T M Link Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Chian A Chang; Abigail L Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Ernest Butler; Deepa Rajendran; Kenneth Chuah; Stephen Stuckey Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-05-20