Y Zhang1,2, S A Gauthier3, A Gupta4, L Tu5, J Comunale4, G C-Y Chiang4, W Chen1, C A Salustri2,6, W Zhu1, Y Wang7,6. 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. 2. Department of Radiology (Y.Z., C.A.S., Y.W.), Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Departments of Neurology (S.A.G.). 4. Radiology (A.G., J.C., G.C.-Y.C.), Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 5. School of Applied and Engineering Physics (L.T.). 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering (Y.W.), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 7. Department of Radiology (Y.Z., C.A.S., Y.W.), Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York yiwang@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic susceptibility values of multiple sclerosis lesions increase as they change from gadolinium-enhancing to nonenhancing. Can susceptibility values measured on quantitative susceptibility mapping without gadolinium injection be used to identify the status of lesion enhancement in surveillance MR imaging used to monitor patients with MS? MATERIALS AND METHODS: In patients who had prior MR imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping in a current MR imaging, new T2-weighted lesions were evaluated for enhancement on conventional T1-weighted imaging with gadolinium, and their susceptibility values were measured on quantitative susceptibility mapping. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of using quantitative susceptibility mapping in distinguishing new gadolinium-enhancing from new nonenhancing lesions. A generalized estimating equation was used to assess differences in susceptibility values among lesion types. RESULTS: In 54 patients, we identified 86 of 133 new lesions that were gadolinium-enhancing and had relative susceptibility values significantly lower than those of nonenhancing lesions (β = -17.2; 95% CI, -20.2 to -14.2; P < .0001). Using susceptibility values to discriminate enhancing from nonenhancing lesions, we performed receiver operating characteristic analysis and found that the area under the curve was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Sensitivity was measured at 88.4%, and specificity, at 91.5%, with a cutoff value of 11.2 parts per billion for quantitative susceptibility mapping-measured susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: During routine MR imaging monitoring to detect new MS lesion activity, quantitative susceptibility mapping can be used without gadolinium injection for accurate identification of the BBB leakage status in new T2WI lesions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic susceptibility values of multiple sclerosis lesions increase as they change from gadolinium-enhancing to nonenhancing. Can susceptibility values measured on quantitative susceptibility mapping without gadolinium injection be used to identify the status of lesion enhancement in surveillance MR imaging used to monitor patients with MS? MATERIALS AND METHODS: In patients who had prior MR imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping in a current MR imaging, new T2-weighted lesions were evaluated for enhancement on conventional T1-weighted imaging with gadolinium, and their susceptibility values were measured on quantitative susceptibility mapping. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of using quantitative susceptibility mapping in distinguishing new gadolinium-enhancing from new nonenhancing lesions. A generalized estimating equation was used to assess differences in susceptibility values among lesion types. RESULTS: In 54 patients, we identified 86 of 133 new lesions that were gadolinium-enhancing and had relative susceptibility values significantly lower than those of nonenhancing lesions (β = -17.2; 95% CI, -20.2 to -14.2; P < .0001). Using susceptibility values to discriminate enhancing from nonenhancing lesions, we performed receiver operating characteristic analysis and found that the area under the curve was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Sensitivity was measured at 88.4%, and specificity, at 91.5%, with a cutoff value of 11.2 parts per billion for quantitative susceptibility mapping-measured susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: During routine MR imaging monitoring to detect new MS lesion activity, quantitative susceptibility mapping can be used without gadolinium injection for accurate identification of the BBB leakage status in new T2WI lesions.
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: 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: 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: 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: Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Katherine Simon; Melissa Reichman; Pascal Spincemaille; Thanh Nguyen; Youngwook Kee; Junghun Cho; Paul J Christos; Michele Drotman; Martin R Prince; Elizabeth A Morris; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 4.668