W Bian1, E Tranvinh1, T Tourdias2,3, M Han4, T Liu5, Y Wang5, B Rutt1, M M Zeineh6. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., E.T., B.R., M.M.Z.). 2. Service de NeuroImagerie Diagnostique et Thérapeutique (T.T.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux Cedex, France. 3. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U 862 (T.T.), Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux Cedex, France. 4. Neurology (M.H.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 5. Department of Radiology (T.L., Y.W.), Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York. 6. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., E.T., B.R., M.M.Z.) mzeineh@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic susceptibility measured with quantitative susceptibility mapping has been proposed as a biomarker for demyelination and inflammation in patients with MS, but investigations have mostly been on white matter lesions. A detailed characterization of cortical lesions has not been performed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate magnetic susceptibility in both cortical and WM lesions in MS by using quantitative susceptibility mapping. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with MS were scanned on a 7T MR imaging scanner with T1-, T2-, and T2*-weighted sequences. The T2*-weighted sequence was used to perform quantitative susceptibility mapping and generate tissue susceptibility maps. The susceptibility contrast of a lesion was quantified as the relative susceptibility between the lesion and its adjacent normal-appearing parenchyma. The susceptibility difference between cortical and WM lesions was assessed by using a t test. RESULTS: The mean relative susceptibility was significantly negative for cortical lesions (P < 10-7) but positive for WM lesions (P < 10-22). A similar pattern was also observed in the cortical (P = .054) and WM portions (P = .043) of mixed lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The negative susceptibility in cortical lesions suggests that iron loss dominates the susceptibility contrast in cortical lesions. The opposite susceptibility contrast between cortical and WM lesions may reflect both their structural (degree of myelination) and pathologic (degree of inflammation) differences, in which the latter may lead to a faster release of iron in cortical lesions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic susceptibility measured with quantitative susceptibility mapping has been proposed as a biomarker for demyelination and inflammation in patients with MS, but investigations have mostly been on white matter lesions. A detailed characterization of cortical lesions has not been performed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate magnetic susceptibility in both cortical and WM lesions in MS by using quantitative susceptibility mapping. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with MS were scanned on a 7T MR imaging scanner with T1-, T2-, and T2*-weighted sequences. The T2*-weighted sequence was used to perform quantitative susceptibility mapping and generate tissue susceptibility maps. The susceptibility contrast of a lesion was quantified as the relative susceptibility between the lesion and its adjacent normal-appearing parenchyma. The susceptibility difference between cortical and WM lesions was assessed by using a t test. RESULTS: The mean relative susceptibility was significantly negative for cortical lesions (P < 10-7) but positive for WM lesions (P < 10-22). A similar pattern was also observed in the cortical (P = .054) and WM portions (P = .043) of mixed lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The negative susceptibility in cortical lesions suggests that iron loss dominates the susceptibility contrast in cortical lesions. The opposite susceptibility contrast between cortical and WM lesions may reflect both their structural (degree of myelination) and pathologic (degree of inflammation) differences, in which the latter may lead to a faster release of iron in cortical lesions.
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: 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: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: David Pitt; Aaron Boster; Wei Pei; Eric Wohleb; Adam Jasne; Cherian R Zachariah; Kottil Rammohan; Michael V Knopp; Petra Schmalbrock Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2010-07
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: W I McDonald; A Compston; G Edan; D Goodkin; H P Hartung; F D Lublin; H F McFarland; D W Paty; C H Polman; S C Reingold; M Sandberg-Wollheim; W Sibley; A Thompson; S van den Noort; B Y Weinshenker; J S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.422
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: 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: Jiaen Liu; Erin S Beck; Stefano Filippini; Peter van Gelderen; Jacco A de Zwart; Gina Norato; Pascal Sati; Omar Al-Louzi; Hadar Kolb; Maxime Donadieu; Mark Morrison; Jeff H Duyn; Daniel S Reich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 10.065