Yan Zhang1, Susan A Gauthier2, Ajay Gupta3, Joseph Comunale3, Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang3, Dong Zhou3, Weiwei Chen1, Ashley E Giambrone4, Wenzhen Zhu1, Yi Wang3,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China. 2. Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA. 4. Department of Healthcare Policy & Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure the longitudinal change in multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion susceptibility using quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Longitudinal changes in quantitative susceptibility values of new enhanced-with-Gd MS lesions were measured at baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and on a follow-up MRI in 29 patients within 2 years using a 3D multiple echo gradient echo sequence on a 3T scanner. Paired t-test and the generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was used to analyze the longitudinal change. RESULTS: Lesion susceptibility values relative to normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) changed from 3.61 ± 6.11 ppb when enhanced-with-Gd at the baseline MRI to 20.42 ± 10.23 ppb when not-enhanced-with-Gd at the follow-up MRI (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MS lesion susceptibility value increases significantly as the lesion evolves from enhanced-with-Gd to not-enhanced-with-Gd, serving as a disease biomarker. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:426-432.
PURPOSE: To measure the longitudinal change in multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion susceptibility using quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Longitudinal changes in quantitative susceptibility values of new enhanced-with-Gd MS lesions were measured at baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and on a follow-up MRI in 29 patients within 2 years using a 3D multiple echo gradient echo sequence on a 3T scanner. Paired t-test and the generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was used to analyze the longitudinal change. RESULTS: Lesion susceptibility values relative to normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) changed from 3.61 ± 6.11 ppb when enhanced-with-Gd at the baseline MRI to 20.42 ± 10.23 ppb when not-enhanced-with-Gd at the follow-up MRI (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MS lesion susceptibility value increases significantly as the lesion evolves from enhanced-with-Gd to not-enhanced-with-Gd, serving as a disease biomarker. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:426-432.
Authors: Jesper Hagemeier; Mari Heininen-Brown; Guy U Poloni; Niels Bergsland; Christopher R Magnano; Jacqueline Durfee; Cheryl Kennedy; Ellen Carl; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Michael G Dwyer; Robert Zivadinov Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 4.813
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: 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: 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: Martina Absinta; Pascal Sati; María I Gaitán; Pietro Maggi; Irene C M Cortese; Massimo Filippi; Daniel S Reich Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 10.422
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: Issel Anne L Lim; Andreia V Faria; Xu Li; Johnny T C Hsu; Raag D Airan; Susumu Mori; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: M Castellaro; R Magliozzi; A Palombit; M Pitteri; E Silvestri; V Camera; S Montemezzi; F B Pizzini; A Bertoldo; R Reynolds; S Monaco; M Calabrese Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ulrike W Kaunzner; Yeona Kang; Shun Zhang; Eric Morris; Yihao Yao; Sneha Pandya; Sandra M Hurtado Rua; Calvin Park; Kelly M Gillen; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang; David Pitt; Susan A Gauthier Journal: Brain Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Zhe Liu; Yan Wen; Pascal Spincemaille; Shun Zhang; Yihao Yao; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kofi Deh; Gerald D Ponath; Zaki Molvi; Gian-Carlo T Parel; Kelly M Gillen; Shun Zhang; Thanh D Nguyen; Pascal Spincemaille; Yinghua Ma; Ajay Gupta; Susan A Gauthier; David Pitt; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 4.813
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