BACKGROUND: Demyelination is a core pathological feature of multiple sclerosis (MS) and spontaneous remyelination appears to be an important mechanism for repair in the disease. Magnetization transfer ratio imaging (MTR) has been used extensively to evaluate demyelination, although limitations to its specificity are recognized. MT saturation imaging (MTsat) removes some of the T1 dependence of MTR. We have performed a comparative evaluation of MTR and MTsat imaging in a mixed group of subjects with active MS, to explore their relative sensitivity to pathology relevant to explaining clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 134 subjects underwent MRI of their brain and cervical spinal cord. Isotropic 3-dimensional pre- and postcontrast T1-weighted and T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) volumes were segmented into brain normal appearing white matter (NAWM), brain WM lesions (WML), normal appearing spinal cord (NASC), and spinal cord lesions. Volumes and metrics for MTR and MTsat histograms were calculated for each region. RESULTS: Significant Spearman correlations were found with the Expanded Disability Status Scale and timed 25-foot walk for the whole brain and WML MTR, but not in that from the NAWM or any cervical spinal cord region. By contrast, the MTsat was correlated with both disability metrics in all these regions in both the brain and spine. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends prior work relating atrophy and lesion load with disability, by characterization of MTsat parameters. MTsat is practical in routine clinical applications and may be more sensitive to tissue damage than MTR for both brain and cervical spinal cord.
BACKGROUND:Demyelination is a core pathological feature of multiple sclerosis (MS) and spontaneous remyelination appears to be an important mechanism for repair in the disease. Magnetization transfer ratio imaging (MTR) has been used extensively to evaluate demyelination, although limitations to its specificity are recognized. MT saturation imaging (MTsat) removes some of the T1 dependence of MTR. We have performed a comparative evaluation of MTR and MTsat imaging in a mixed group of subjects with active MS, to explore their relative sensitivity to pathology relevant to explaining clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 134 subjects underwent MRI of their brain and cervical spinal cord. Isotropic 3-dimensional pre- and postcontrast T1-weighted and T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) volumes were segmented into brain normal appearing white matter (NAWM), brain WM lesions (WML), normal appearing spinal cord (NASC), and spinal cord lesions. Volumes and metrics for MTR and MTsat histograms were calculated for each region. RESULTS: Significant Spearman correlations were found with the Expanded Disability Status Scale and timed 25-foot walk for the whole brain and WML MTR, but not in that from the NAWM or any cervical spinal cord region. By contrast, the MTsat was correlated with both disability metrics in all these regions in both the brain and spine. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends prior work relating atrophy and lesion load with disability, by characterization of MTsat parameters. MTsat is practical in routine clinical applications and may be more sensitive to tissue damage than MTR for both brain and cervical spinal cord.
Authors: Kurt G Schilling; Samantha By; Haley R Feiler; Bailey A Box; Kristin P O'Grady; Atlee Witt; Bennett A Landman; Seth A Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Julien Cohen-Adad; Eva Alonso-Ortiz; Mihael Abramovic; Carina Arneitz; Nicole Atcheson; Laura Barlow; Robert L Barry; Markus Barth; Marco Battiston; Christian Büchel; Matthew Budde; Virginie Callot; Anna J E Combes; Benjamin De Leener; Maxime Descoteaux; Paulo Loureiro de Sousa; Marek Dostál; Julien Doyon; Adam Dvorak; Falk Eippert; Karla R Epperson; Kevin S Epperson; Patrick Freund; Jürgen Finsterbusch; Alexandru Foias; Michela Fratini; Issei Fukunaga; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Giancarlo Germani; Guillaume Gilbert; Federico Giove; Charley Gros; Francesco Grussu; Akifumi Hagiwara; Pierre-Gilles Henry; Tomáš Horák; Masaaki Hori; James Joers; Kouhei Kamiya; Haleh Karbasforoushan; Miloš Keřkovský; Ali Khatibi; Joo-Won Kim; Nawal Kinany; Hagen Kitzler; Shannon Kolind; Yazhuo Kong; Petr Kudlička; Paul Kuntke; Nyoman D Kurniawan; Slawomir Kusmia; René Labounek; Maria Marcella Laganà; Cornelia Laule; Christine S Law; Christophe Lenglet; Tobias Leutritz; Yaou Liu; Sara Llufriu; Sean Mackey; Eloy Martinez-Heras; Loan Mattera; Igor Nestrasil; Kristin P O'Grady; Nico Papinutto; Daniel Papp; Deborah Pareto; Todd B Parrish; Anna Pichiecchio; Ferran Prados; Àlex Rovira; Marc J Ruitenberg; Rebecca S Samson; Giovanni Savini; Maryam Seif; Alan C Seifert; Alex K Smith; Seth A Smith; Zachary A Smith; Elisabeth Solana; Yuichi Suzuki; George Tackley; Alexandra Tinnermann; Jan Valošek; Dimitri Van De Ville; Marios C Yiannakas; Kenneth A Weber; Nikolaus Weiskopf; Richard G Wise; Patrik O Wyss; Junqian Xu Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 17.021
Authors: Cristina Granziera; Jens Wuerfel; Frederik Barkhof; Massimiliano Calabrese; Nicola De Stefano; Christian Enzinger; Nikos Evangelou; Massimo Filippi; Jeroen J G Geurts; Daniel S Reich; Maria A Rocca; Stefan Ropele; Àlex Rovira; Pascal Sati; Ahmed T Toosy; Hugo Vrenken; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Ludwig Kappos Journal: Brain Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Allysa Warling; Cassidy L McDermott; Siyuan Liu; Jakob Seidlitz; Amanda L Rodrigue; Ajay Nadig; Ruben C Gur; Raquel E Gur; David Roalf; Tyler M Moore; David Glahn; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Edward T Bullmore; Armin Raznahan Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Sophie A H Jacobs; Paolo A Muraro; Maria T Cencioni; Sarah Knowles; James H Cole; Richard Nicholas Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 4.003