Y Zhang1, S A Gauthier2, A Gupta3, W Chen4, J Comunale3, G C-Y Chiang3, D Zhou3, G Askin5, W Zhu4, D Pitt6, Y Wang7. 1. From the Department of Radiology (Y.Z., W.C., W.Z.), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China Departments of Radiology (Y.Z., A.G., J.C., G.C.-Y.C., D.Z., Y.W.). 2. Neurology (S.A.G.). 3. Departments of Radiology (Y.Z., A.G., J.C., G.C.-Y.C., D.Z., Y.W.). 4. From the Department of Radiology (Y.Z., W.C., W.Z.), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 5. Healthcare Policy and Research (G.A.), Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 6. Department of Neurology (D.P.), School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 7. Departments of Radiology (Y.Z., A.G., J.C., G.C.-Y.C., D.Z., Y.W.) Department of Biomedical Engineering (Y.W.), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. yiwang@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* are sensitive to myelin and iron changes in multiple sclerosis lesions. This study was designed to characterize lesion changes on quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* at various gadolinium-enhancement stages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 64 patients with MS with different enhancing patterns in white matter lesions: nodular, shell-like, nonenhancing < 1 year old, and nonenhancing 1-3 years old. These represent acute, late acute, early chronic, and late chronic lesions, respectively. Susceptibility values measured on quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* values were compared among the 4 lesion types. Their differences were assessed with a generalized estimating equation, controlling for Expanded Disability Status Scale score, age, and disease duration. RESULTS: We analyzed 203 lesions: 80 were nodular-enhancing, of which 77 (96.2%) were isointense on quantitative susceptibility mapping; 33 were shell-enhancing, of which 30 (90.9%) were hyperintense on quantitative susceptibility mapping; and 49 were nonenhancing lesions < 1 year old and 41 were nonenhancing lesions 1-3 years old, all of which were hyperintense on quantitative susceptibility mapping. Their relative susceptibility/R2* values were 0.5 ± 4.4 parts per billion/-5.6 ± 2.9 Hz, 10.2 ± 5.4 parts per billion/-8.0 ± 2.6 Hz, 20.2 ± 7.8 parts per billion/-3.1 ± 2.3 Hz, and 33.2 ± 8.2 parts per billion/-2.0 ± 2.6 Hz, respectively, and were significantly different (P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: Early active MS lesions with nodular enhancement show R2* decrease but no quantitative susceptibility mapping change, reflecting myelin breakdown; late active lesions with peripheral enhancement show R2* decrease and quantitative susceptibility mapping increase in the lesion center, reflecting further degradation and removal of myelin debris; and early or late chronic nonenhancing lesions show both quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* increase, reflecting iron accumulation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* are sensitive to myelin and iron changes in multiple sclerosis lesions. This study was designed to characterize lesion changes on quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* at various gadolinium-enhancement stages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 64 patients with MS with different enhancing patterns in white matter lesions: nodular, shell-like, nonenhancing < 1 year old, and nonenhancing 1-3 years old. These represent acute, late acute, early chronic, and late chronic lesions, respectively. Susceptibility values measured on quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* values were compared among the 4 lesion types. Their differences were assessed with a generalized estimating equation, controlling for Expanded Disability Status Scale score, age, and disease duration. RESULTS: We analyzed 203 lesions: 80 were nodular-enhancing, of which 77 (96.2%) were isointense on quantitative susceptibility mapping; 33 were shell-enhancing, of which 30 (90.9%) were hyperintense on quantitative susceptibility mapping; and 49 were nonenhancing lesions < 1 year old and 41 were nonenhancing lesions 1-3 years old, all of which were hyperintense on quantitative susceptibility mapping. Their relative susceptibility/R2* values were 0.5 ± 4.4 parts per billion/-5.6 ± 2.9 Hz, 10.2 ± 5.4 parts per billion/-8.0 ± 2.6 Hz, 20.2 ± 7.8 parts per billion/-3.1 ± 2.3 Hz, and 33.2 ± 8.2 parts per billion/-2.0 ± 2.6 Hz, respectively, and were significantly different (P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: Early active MS lesions with nodular enhancement show R2* decrease but no quantitative susceptibility mapping change, reflecting myelin breakdown; late active lesions with peripheral enhancement show R2* decrease and quantitative susceptibility mapping increase in the lesion center, reflecting further degradation and removal of myelin debris; and early or late chronic nonenhancing lesions show both quantitative susceptibility mapping and R2* increase, reflecting iron accumulation.
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: I Blystad; I Håkansson; A Tisell; J Ernerudh; Ö Smedby; P Lundberg; E-M Larsson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 3.825
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: S Zhang; T D Nguyen; S M Hurtado Rúa; U W Kaunzner; S Pandya; I Kovanlikaya; P Spincemaille; Y Wang; S A Gauthier Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nathanael J Lee; Seung-Kwon Ha; Pascal Sati; Martina Absinta; Govind Nair; Nicholas J Luciano; Emily C Leibovitch; Cecil C Yen; Tracey A Rouault; Afonso C Silva; Steven Jacobson; Daniel S Reich Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Y Yao; T D Nguyen; S Pandya; Y Zhang; S Hurtado Rúa; I Kovanlikaya; A Kuceyeski; Z Liu; Y Wang; S A Gauthier Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.825