I Blystad1, I Håkansson2, A Tisell3, J Ernerudh4, Ö Smedby5, P Lundberg3, E-M Larsson6. 1. From the Departments of Radiology and Medical and Health Sciences (I.B., Ö.S.) Centre for Medical Image Science and Visualization (I.B., A.T., Ö.S., P.L., E.-M.L.) ida.blystad@regionostergotland.se. 2. Departments of Neurology and Clinical and Experimental Medicine (I.H.). 3. Centre for Medical Image Science and Visualization (I.B., A.T., Ö.S., P.L., E.-M.L.) Departments of Radiation Physics and Medical and Health Sciences (A.T., P.L., E.-M.L.). 4. Departments of Clinical Immunology and Transfusion Medicine and Clinical and Experimental Medicine (J.E.), Linköping University, Linköping Sweden. 5. From the Departments of Radiology and Medical and Health Sciences (I.B., Ö.S.) Centre for Medical Image Science and Visualization (I.B., A.T., Ö.S., P.L., E.-M.L.). 6. Centre for Medical Image Science and Visualization (I.B., A.T., Ö.S., P.L., E.-M.L.) Departments of Radiation Physics and Medical and Health Sciences (A.T., P.L., E.-M.L.) Department of Surgical Sciences/Radiology (E.-M.L.), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contrast-enhancing MS lesions are important markers of active inflammation in the diagnostic work-up of MS and in disease monitoring with MR imaging. Because intravenous contrast agents involve an expense and a potential risk of adverse events, it would be desirable to identify active lesions without using a contrast agent. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether pre-contrast injection tissue-relaxation rates and proton density of MS lesions, by using a new quantitative MR imaging sequence, can identify active lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with a clinical suspicion of MS were studied. MR imaging with a standard clinical MS protocol and a quantitative MR imaging sequence was performed at inclusion (baseline) and after 1 year. ROIs were placed in MS lesions, classified as nonenhancing or enhancing. Longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates, as well as proton density were obtained from the quantitative MR imaging sequence. Statistical analyses of ROI values were performed by using a mixed linear model, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Enhancing lesions had a significantly (P < .001) higher mean longitudinal relaxation rate (1.22 ± 0.36 versus 0.89 ± 0.24), a higher mean transverse relaxation rate (9.8 ± 2.6 versus 7.4 ± 1.9), and a lower mean proton density (77 ± 11.2 versus 90 ± 8.4) than nonenhancing lesions. An area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.832 was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhancing MS lesions often have proton density and relaxation times that differ from those in nonenhancing lesions, with lower proton density and shorter relaxation times in enhancing lesions compared with nonenhancing lesions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contrast-enhancing MS lesions are important markers of active inflammation in the diagnostic work-up of MS and in disease monitoring with MR imaging. Because intravenous contrast agents involve an expense and a potential risk of adverse events, it would be desirable to identify active lesions without using a contrast agent. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether pre-contrast injection tissue-relaxation rates and proton density of MS lesions, by using a new quantitative MR imaging sequence, can identify active lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with a clinical suspicion of MS were studied. MR imaging with a standard clinical MS protocol and a quantitative MR imaging sequence was performed at inclusion (baseline) and after 1 year. ROIs were placed in MS lesions, classified as nonenhancing or enhancing. Longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates, as well as proton density were obtained from the quantitative MR imaging sequence. Statistical analyses of ROI values were performed by using a mixed linear model, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Enhancing lesions had a significantly (P < .001) higher mean longitudinal relaxation rate (1.22 ± 0.36 versus 0.89 ± 0.24), a higher mean transverse relaxation rate (9.8 ± 2.6 versus 7.4 ± 1.9), and a lower mean proton density (77 ± 11.2 versus 90 ± 8.4) than nonenhancing lesions. An area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.832 was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhancing MS lesions often have proton density and relaxation times that differ from those in nonenhancing lesions, with lower proton density and shorter relaxation times in enhancing lesions compared with nonenhancing lesions.
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Maria A Rocca; Frederik Barkhof; Wolfgang Brück; Jacqueline T Chen; Giancarlo Comi; Gabriele DeLuca; Nicola De Stefano; Bradley J Erickson; Nikos Evangelou; Franz Fazekas; Jeroen J G Geurts; Claudia Lucchinetti; David H Miller; Daniel Pelletier; Bogdan F Gh Popescu; Hans Lassmann Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Ives R Levesque; Paul S Giacomini; Sridar Narayanan; Luciana T Ribeiro; John G Sled; Doug L Arnold; G Bruce Pike Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: H B Larsson; J Frederiksen; J Petersen; A Nordenbo; I Zeeberg; O Henriksen; J Olesen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 4.668
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: 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: A Hagiwara; M Hori; K Yokoyama; M Y Takemura; C Andica; T Tabata; K Kamagata; M Suzuki; K K Kumamaru; M Nakazawa; N Takano; H Kawasaki; N Hamasaki; A Kunimatsu; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C Thaler; T D Faizy; J Sedlacik; B Holst; K Stürner; C Heesen; J-P Stellmann; J Fiehler; S Siemonsen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y Zhang; S A Gauthier; A Gupta; L Tu; J Comunale; G C-Y Chiang; W Chen; C A Salustri; W Zhu; Y Wang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y Zhang; S A Gauthier; A Gupta; W Chen; J Comunale; G C-Y Chiang; D Zhou; G Askin; W Zhu; D Pitt; Y Wang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Shihan Qiu; Yuhua Chen; Sen Ma; Zhaoyang Fan; Franklin G Moser; Marcel M Maya; Anthony G Christodoulou; Yibin Xie; Debiao Li Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S Fujita; K Yokoyama; A Hagiwara; S Kato; C Andica; K Kamagata; N Hattori; O Abe; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.825