S Siemonsen1, K L Young2, M Bester3, J Sedlacik3, C Heesen2, J Fiehler3, J-P Stellmann2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. s.siemonsen@uke.uni-hamburg.de. 2. Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Phase imaging provides additional information on multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions and may in combination with mean diffusivity (MD) and magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) help differentiating heterogeneity of MS lesion pathology. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in 23 MS patients including diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), magnetization transfer imaging (MTI), and SWI. Mean values (MTR, MD, and homodyne filtered phase) from 138 chronic MS lesions and normal appearing white matter (NAWM) were obtained and correlations examined. For explorative analysis, a divisive hierarchical clustering algorithm was applied. RESULTS: Phase characteristics were an independent characteristic of chronic T2 lesions, as MTR and MD were not correlated with phase values (R = - 0.23, R = - 0.18). Dependent on MTR, MD, and phase, cluster analysis led to five lesion groups. Of the two groups with phase values close to NAWM, one presented with highest MD and most severe MTR decrease (p = 0.01), the other with slight MD increase and MTR decrease. Two lesion groups with highest phase values (p = 0.01) displayed slightly increased MD and moderate decrease in MTR. Clinical data including EDSS, disease duration, and age did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Increased phase is predominantly detectable in lesions with clear MTR decrease but only moderate MD increase. Phase images seem to represent an independent parameter for MS lesion characterization and may provide additional information on MS lesion heterogeneity.
PURPOSE: Phase imaging provides additional information on multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions and may in combination with mean diffusivity (MD) and magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) help differentiating heterogeneity of MS lesion pathology. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in 23 MS patients including diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), magnetization transfer imaging (MTI), and SWI. Mean values (MTR, MD, and homodyne filtered phase) from 138 chronic MS lesions and normal appearing white matter (NAWM) were obtained and correlations examined. For explorative analysis, a divisive hierarchical clustering algorithm was applied. RESULTS: Phase characteristics were an independent characteristic of chronic T2 lesions, as MTR and MD were not correlated with phase values (R = - 0.23, R = - 0.18). Dependent on MTR, MD, and phase, cluster analysis led to five lesion groups. Of the two groups with phase values close to NAWM, one presented with highest MD and most severe MTR decrease (p = 0.01), the other with slight MD increase and MTR decrease. Two lesion groups with highest phase values (p = 0.01) displayed slightly increased MD and moderate decrease in MTR. Clinical data including EDSS, disease duration, and age did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Increased phase is predominantly detectable in lesions with clear MTR decrease but only moderate MD increase. Phase images seem to represent an independent parameter for MS lesion characterization and may provide additional information on MS lesion heterogeneity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion tensor imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetization transfer contrast imaging; Multiple sclerosis; Susceptibility weighted imaging
Authors: E Mark Haacke; Norman Y C Cheng; Michael J House; Qiang Liu; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Robert J Ogg; Asadullah Khan; Muhammad Ayaz; Wolff Kirsch; Andre Obenaus Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.546
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: Amir Eissa; R Marc Lebel; Jeff R Korzan; Anna E Zavodni; Kenneth G Warren; Ingrid Catz; Derek J Emery; Alan H Wilman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alexandra Seewann; Hugo Vrenken; Paul van der Valk; Erwin L A Blezer; Dirk L Knol; Jonas A Castelijns; C H Polman; Petra J W Pouwels; Frederik Barkhof; Jeroen J G Geurts Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2009-05
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: Frederik Barkhof; Wolfgang Bruck; Corline J A De Groot; Elisabeth Bergers; Sandra Hulshof; Jeroen Geurts; Chris H Polman; Paul van der Valk Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2003-08
Authors: Bing Yao; Tie-Qiang Li; Peter van Gelderen; Karin Shmueli; Jacco A de Zwart; Jeff H Duyn Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 6.556