PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical utility of fast whole-brain macromolecular proton fraction ( MPF macromolecular proton fraction ) mapping in multiple sclerosis ( MS multiple sclerosis ) and compare MPF macromolecular proton fraction with established quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging measures of tissue damage including magnetization transfer ( MT magnetization transfer ) ratio and relaxation rate (R1). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study, 14 healthy control participants, 18 relapsing-remitting MS multiple sclerosis ( RRMS relaxing-remitting MS ) patients, and 12 secondary progressive MS multiple sclerosis ( SPMS secondary progressive MS ) patients provided written informed consent and underwent 3-T MR imaging. Three-dimensional MPF macromolecular proton fraction maps were reconstructed from MT magnetization transfer -weighted images and R1 maps by the single-point method. Mean MPF macromolecular proton fraction , R1, and MT magnetization transfer ratio in normal-appearing white matter ( WM white matter ), gray matter ( GM gray matter ), and lesions were compared between subject groups by using analysis of variance. Correlations (Pearson r) between imaging data and clinical scores (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] and MS multiple sclerosis Functional Composite [ MSFC MS functional composite ]) were compared by using Hotelling-Williams test. RESULTS: RRMS relaxing-remitting MS patients had lower WM white matter and GM gray matter MPF macromolecular proton fraction than controls, with percentage decreases of 6.5% (P < .005) and 5.4% (P < .05). MPF macromolecular proton fraction in SPMS secondary progressive MS was reduced relative to RRMS relaxing-remitting MS in WM white matter , GM gray matter , and lesions by 6.4% (P < .005), 13.4% (P < .005), and 11.7% (P < .05), respectively. EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale and MSFC MS functional composite demonstrated strongest correlations with MPF macromolecular proton fraction in GM gray matter (r = -0.74 and 0.81; P < .001) followed by WM white matter (r = -0.57 and 0.72; P < .01) and lesions (r = -0.42 and 0.50; P < .05). R1 and MT magnetization transfer ratio in all tissues were significantly less correlated with clinical scores than GM gray matter MPF macromolecular proton fraction (P < .05). CONCLUSION: MPF macromolecular proton fraction mapping enables quantitative assessment of demyelination in normal-appearing brain tissues and shows primary clinical relevance of GM gray matter damage in MS multiple sclerosis . MPF macromolecular proton fraction outperforms MT magnetization transfer ratio and R1 in detection of MS multiple sclerosis -related tissue changes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical utility of fast whole-brain macromolecular proton fraction ( MPF macromolecular proton fraction ) mapping in multiple sclerosis ( MS multiple sclerosis ) and compare MPF macromolecular proton fraction with established quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging measures of tissue damage including magnetization transfer ( MT magnetization transfer ) ratio and relaxation rate (R1). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study, 14 healthy control participants, 18 relapsing-remitting MS multiple sclerosis ( RRMS relaxing-remitting MS ) patients, and 12 secondary progressive MS multiple sclerosis ( SPMS secondary progressive MS ) patients provided written informed consent and underwent 3-T MR imaging. Three-dimensional MPF macromolecular proton fraction maps were reconstructed from MT magnetization transfer -weighted images and R1 maps by the single-point method. Mean MPF macromolecular proton fraction , R1, and MT magnetization transfer ratio in normal-appearing white matter ( WM white matter ), gray matter ( GM gray matter ), and lesions were compared between subject groups by using analysis of variance. Correlations (Pearson r) between imaging data and clinical scores (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] and MS multiple sclerosis Functional Composite [ MSFC MS functional composite ]) were compared by using Hotelling-Williams test. RESULTS: RRMS relaxing-remitting MS patients had lower WM white matter and GM gray matter MPF macromolecular proton fraction than controls, with percentage decreases of 6.5% (P < .005) and 5.4% (P < .05). MPF macromolecular proton fraction in SPMS secondary progressive MS was reduced relative to RRMS relaxing-remitting MS in WM white matter , GM gray matter , and lesions by 6.4% (P < .005), 13.4% (P < .005), and 11.7% (P < .05), respectively. EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale and MSFC MS functional composite demonstrated strongest correlations with MPF macromolecular proton fraction in GM gray matter (r = -0.74 and 0.81; P < .001) followed by WM white matter (r = -0.57 and 0.72; P < .01) and lesions (r = -0.42 and 0.50; P < .05). R1 and MT magnetization transfer ratio in all tissues were significantly less correlated with clinical scores than GM gray matter MPF macromolecular proton fraction (P < .05). CONCLUSION: MPF macromolecular proton fraction mapping enables quantitative assessment of demyelination in normal-appearing brain tissues and shows primary clinical relevance of GM gray matter damage in MS multiple sclerosis . MPF macromolecular proton fraction outperforms MT magnetization transfer ratio and R1 in detection of MS multiple sclerosis -related tissue changes.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vaibhav A Janve; Zhongliang Zu; Song-Yi Yao; Ke Li; Fang Lin Zhang; Kevin J Wilson; Xiawei Ou; Mark D Does; Sriram Subramaniam; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: V L Yarnykh; E P Krutenkova; G Aitmagambetova; P Repovic; A Mayadev; P Qian; L K Jung Henson; B Gangadharan; J D Bowen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Fucheng Luo; Jessie Zhang; Kathryn Burke; Rita R Romito-DiGiacomo; Robert H Miller; Yan Yang Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Ouri Cohen; Shuning Huang; Michael T McMahon; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Marina Y Khodanovich; Alena A Kisel; Andrey E Akulov; Dmitriy N Atochin; Marina S Kudabaeva; Valentina Y Glazacheva; Michael V Svetlik; Yana A Medvednikova; Lilia R Mustafina; Vasily L Yarnykh Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2018-01-26 Impact factor: 6.200