PURPOSE: To demonstrate the phase and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) patterns created by solid and shell spatial distributions of magnetic susceptibility in multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Numerical simulations and experimental phantoms of solid- and shell-shaped magnetic susceptibility sources were used to generate magnitude, phase, and QSM images. Imaging of 20 consecutive MS patients was also reviewed for this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved MRI study to identify the appearance of solid and shell lesions on phase and QSM images. RESULTS: Solid and shell susceptibility sources were correctly reconstructed in QSM images, while the corresponding phase images depicted both geometries with shell-like patterns, making the underlying susceptibility distribution difficult to determine using phase alone. In MS patients, of the 60 largest lesions identified on T2 , 30 lesions were detected on both QSM and phase, of which 83% were solid and 17% were shells on QSM, and of which 30% were solid and 70% were shell on phase. Of the 21 shell-like lesions on phase, 76% appeared solid on QSM, 24% appeared shell on QSM. Of the five shell-like lesions on QSM, all were shell-like on phase. CONCLUSION: QSM accurately depicts both solid and shell patterns of magnetic susceptibility, while phase imaging fails to distinguish them.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the phase and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) patterns created by solid and shell spatial distributions of magnetic susceptibility in multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Numerical simulations and experimental phantoms of solid- and shell-shaped magnetic susceptibility sources were used to generate magnitude, phase, and QSM images. Imaging of 20 consecutive MSpatients was also reviewed for this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved MRI study to identify the appearance of solid and shell lesions on phase and QSM images. RESULTS: Solid and shell susceptibility sources were correctly reconstructed in QSM images, while the corresponding phase images depicted both geometries with shell-like patterns, making the underlying susceptibility distribution difficult to determine using phase alone. In MSpatients, of the 60 largest lesions identified on T2 , 30 lesions were detected on both QSM and phase, of which 83% were solid and 17% were shells on QSM, and of which 30% were solid and 70% were shell on phase. Of the 21 shell-like lesions on phase, 76% appeared solid on QSM, 24% appeared shell on QSM. Of the five shell-like lesions on QSM, all were shell-like on phase. CONCLUSION: QSM accurately depicts both solid and shell patterns of magnetic susceptibility, while phase imaging fails to distinguish them.
Authors: Wei Bian; Kristin Harter; Kathryn E Hammond-Rosenbluth; Janine M Lupo; Duan Xu; Douglas Ac Kelley; Daniel B Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel Pelletier Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2012-05-28 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Andrew J Walsh; R Marc Lebel; Amir Eissa; Gregg Blevins; Ingrid Catz; Jian-Qiang Lu; Lothar Resch; Edward S Johnson; Derek J Emery; Kenneth G Warren; Alan H Wilman Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dmitriy A Yablonskiy; Jie Luo; Alexander L Sukstanskii; Aditi Iyer; Anne H Cross Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Vanessa Wiggermann; Enedino Hernández Torres; Irene M Vavasour; G R Wayne Moore; Cornelia Laule; Alex L MacKay; David K B Li; Anthony Traboulsee; Alexander Rauscher Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: S Chawla; I Kister; J Wuerfel; J-C Brisset; S Liu; T Sinnecker; P Dusek; E M Haacke; F Paul; Y Ge Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Xu Li; Daniel M Harrison; Hongjun Liu; Craig K Jones; Jiwon Oh; Peter A Calabresi; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yi Wang; Pascal Spincemaille; Zhe Liu; Alexey Dimov; Kofi Deh; Jianqi Li; Yan Zhang; Yihao Yao; Kelly M Gillen; Alan H Wilman; Ajay Gupta; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Lawrence Tanenbaum; Weiwei Chen; Wenzhen Zhu; Shixin Chang; Min Lou; Brian H Kopell; Michael G Kaplitt; David Devos; Toshinori Hirai; Xuemei Huang; Yukunori Korogi; Alexander Shtilbans; Geon-Ho Jahng; Daniel Pelletier; Susan A Gauthier; David Pitt; Ashley I Bush; Gary M Brittenham; Martin R Prince Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrew W Gorman; Kofi M Deh; Caspar M Schwiedrzik; Julie R White; Ernest Victor Groman; Clark A Fisher; Kelly M Gillen; Pascal Spincemaille; Skye Rasmussen; Martin R Prince; Henning U Voss; Winrich A Freiwald; Yi Wang Journal: Comp Med Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Mechelle M Lewis; Guangwei Du; Jennifer Baccon; Amanda M Snyder; Ben Murie; Felicia Cooper; Christy Stetter; Lan Kong; Christopher Sica; Richard B Mailman; James R Connor; Xuemei Huang Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Y Yao; T D Nguyen; S Pandya; Y Zhang; S Hurtado Rúa; I Kovanlikaya; A Kuceyeski; Z Liu; Y Wang; S A Gauthier Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.825