V Wiggermann1, E Hernández-Torres2, A Traboulsee3, D K B Li4, A Rauscher5. 1. From the Departments of Physics and Astronomy (V.W.) Pediatrics (V.W., E.H.T., A.R.) University of British Columbia MRI Research Centre (V.W., E.H.T., A.R.). 2. Pediatrics (V.W., E.H.T., A.R.) University of British Columbia MRI Research Centre (V.W., E.H.T., A.R.). 3. Medicine (Neurology) (A.T., D.K.B.L.). 4. Medicine (Neurology) (A.T., D.K.B.L.) Radiology (D.K.B.L.) Centre for Brain Health (D.K.B.L., A.R.). 5. Pediatrics (V.W., E.H.T., A.R.) University of British Columbia MRI Research Centre (V.W., E.H.T., A.R.) Centre for Brain Health (D.K.B.L., A.R.) Child and Family Research Institute (A.R.), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. rauscher@physics.ubc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: FLAIR and double inversion recovery are important MR imaging scans for MS. The suppression of signal from CSF in FLAIR and the additional suppression of WM signal in double inversion recovery improve contrast between lesions, WM and GM, albeit at a reduced SNR. However, whether the acquisition of double inversion recovery is necessary is still debated. Here, we present an approach that allows obtaining CSF-suppressed images with improved contrast between lesions, WM and GM without strongly penalizing SNR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D T2-weighted and 3D-FLAIR data acquired from September 2014 to April 2015 in healthy volunteers (23.4 ± 2.4 years of age; female/male ratio, 3:2) and patients (44.1 ± 14.0 years of age; female/male ratio, 4:5) with MS were coregistered and multiplied (FLAIR(2)). SNR and contrast-to-noise measurements were performed for focal lesions and GM and WM. Furthermore, data from 24 subjects with relapsing-remitting and progressive MS were analyzed retrospectively (52.7 ± 8.1 years of age; female/male ratio, 14:10). RESULTS: The GM-WM contrast-to-noise ratio was by 133% higher in FLAIR(2) than in FLAIR and improved between lesions and WM by 31%, 93%, and 158% compared with T2, DIR, and FLAIR, respectively. Cortical and juxtacortical lesions were more conspicuous in FLAIR(2). Furthermore, the 3D nature of FLAIR(2) allowed reliable visualization of callosal and infratentorial lesions. CONCLUSIONS: We present a simple approach for obtaining CSF suppression with an improved contrast-to-noise ratio compared with conventional FLAIR and double inversion recovery without the acquisition of additional data. FLAIR(2) can be computed retrospectively if T2 and FLAIR scans are available.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: FLAIR and double inversion recovery are important MR imaging scans for MS. The suppression of signal from CSF in FLAIR and the additional suppression of WM signal in double inversion recovery improve contrast between lesions, WM and GM, albeit at a reduced SNR. However, whether the acquisition of double inversion recovery is necessary is still debated. Here, we present an approach that allows obtaining CSF-suppressed images with improved contrast between lesions, WM and GM without strongly penalizing SNR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D T2-weighted and 3D-FLAIR data acquired from September 2014 to April 2015 in healthy volunteers (23.4 ± 2.4 years of age; female/male ratio, 3:2) and patients (44.1 ± 14.0 years of age; female/male ratio, 4:5) with MS were coregistered and multiplied (FLAIR(2)). SNR and contrast-to-noise measurements were performed for focal lesions and GM and WM. Furthermore, data from 24 subjects with relapsing-remitting and progressive MS were analyzed retrospectively (52.7 ± 8.1 years of age; female/male ratio, 14:10). RESULTS: The GM-WM contrast-to-noise ratio was by 133% higher in FLAIR(2) than in FLAIR and improved between lesions and WM by 31%, 93%, and 158% compared with T2, DIR, and FLAIR, respectively. Cortical and juxtacortical lesions were more conspicuous in FLAIR(2). Furthermore, the 3D nature of FLAIR(2) allowed reliable visualization of callosal and infratentorial lesions. CONCLUSIONS: We present a simple approach for obtaining CSF suppression with an improved contrast-to-noise ratio compared with conventional FLAIR and double inversion recovery without the acquisition of additional data. FLAIR(2) can be computed retrospectively if T2 and FLAIR scans are available.
Authors: J H Simon; D Li; A Traboulsee; P K Coyle; D L Arnold; F Barkhof; J A Frank; R Grossman; D W Paty; E W Radue; J S Wolinsky Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alexandra Seewann; Hugo Vrenken; Evert-Jan Kooi; Paul van der Valk; Dirk L Knol; Chris H Polman; Petra J W Pouwels; Frederik Barkhof; Jeroen J G Geurts Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Bastiaan Moraal; Stefan D Roosendaal; Petra J W Pouwels; Hugo Vrenken; Ronald A van Schijndel; Dominik S Meier; Charles R G Guttmann; Jeroen J G Geurts; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-05-29 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Refaat E Gabr; Getaneh B Tefera; William J Allen; Amol S Pednekar; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Ya-Jun Ma; Shujuan Fan; Hongda Shao; Jiang Du; Nikolaus M Szeverenyi; Ian R Young; Graeme M Bydder Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-06
Authors: William J Allen; Refaat E Gabr; Getaneh B Tefera; Amol S Pednekar; Matthew W Vaughn; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Mikael Agn; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Oula Puonti; Michael J Lundemann; Laura Mancini; Anastasia Papadaki; Steffi Thust; John Ashburner; Ian Law; Koen Van Leemput Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Augustin Lecler; C Bouzad; R Deschamps; F Maizeroi; J C Sadik; A Gueguen; O Gout; H Picard; J Savatovsky Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Refaat E Gabr; Khader M Hasan; Muhammad E Haque; Flavia M Nelson; Jerry S Wolinsky; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael Jarrett; Roger Tam; Enedino Hernández-Torres; Nancy Martin; Warren Perera; Yinshan Zhao; Elham Shahinfard; Shiroy Dadachanji; Jack Taunton; David K B Li; Alexander Rauscher Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Annette M Schmid; David L Raunig; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Robert W Ford; Michael O'Connor; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Josy Breuer; Liz Kuney; Robert R Ford Journal: Ther Innov Regul Sci Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 1.778