PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI), compared with T2*-weighted gradient echo (GRE) imaging in assessing cerebral cavernous malformations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 21 patients with a familial form of cavernous malformation. Magnetic resonance (MR) protocol included non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced fast-spin echo (FSE) T1-weighted sequences, FSE T2-weighted sequences, fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery (FLAIR), GRE T2*-weighted and SWI sequences. Images were reviewed in consensus by two expert neuroradiologists to assess the location, number, size and conspicuity of the lesions on T2*-weighted GRE and SWI sequences. Statistical differences in the number, size and conspicuity of the lesions seen on the SWI images and the T2*-weighted GRE images were assessed with the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The number of cavernous malformations was significantly higher (p < .001) on the SWI images (n = 152) than on T2*-weighted GRE images (n = 56). Lesion size was significantly higher (p < .001) on SWI images (mean: 0.4 cm, SD ± 0.55) than on T2*-weighted GRE sequences (mean: 0.2 cm, SD ± 0.51) and the differences were statistically significant (p < .001). Lesion conspicuity was significant higher (p < .001) on SWI than on T2*-weighted GRE images. In one patient who underwent a 2-month follow-up for the onset of neurologic symptoms related to cerebral hemorrhage, a cerebral hematoma was identified at the site of a cerebral cavernous malformation that was demonstrated only on the SWI images in the previous MR examination. CONCLUSIONS: The SWI sequence, being more sensitive to substances which distort the local magnetic field than the GRE T2*W sequence, showed a higher sensitivity in identifying cerebral cavernous malformations. Thus, routine clinical neuroimaging protocol should contain SWI sequences to evaluate patients with (or suspected) cerebral cavernous malformations.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI), compared with T2*-weighted gradient echo (GRE) imaging in assessing cerebral cavernous malformations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 21 patients with a familial form of cavernous malformation. Magnetic resonance (MR) protocol included non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced fast-spin echo (FSE) T1-weighted sequences, FSE T2-weighted sequences, fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery (FLAIR), GRE T2*-weighted and SWI sequences. Images were reviewed in consensus by two expert neuroradiologists to assess the location, number, size and conspicuity of the lesions on T2*-weighted GRE and SWI sequences. Statistical differences in the number, size and conspicuity of the lesions seen on the SWI images and the T2*-weighted GRE images were assessed with the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The number of cavernous malformations was significantly higher (p < .001) on the SWI images (n = 152) than on T2*-weighted GRE images (n = 56). Lesion size was significantly higher (p < .001) on SWI images (mean: 0.4 cm, SD ± 0.55) than on T2*-weighted GRE sequences (mean: 0.2 cm, SD ± 0.51) and the differences were statistically significant (p < .001). Lesion conspicuity was significant higher (p < .001) on SWI than on T2*-weighted GRE images. In one patient who underwent a 2-month follow-up for the onset of neurologic symptoms related to cerebral hemorrhage, a cerebral hematoma was identified at the site of a cerebral cavernous malformation that was demonstrated only on the SWI images in the previous MR examination. CONCLUSIONS: The SWI sequence, being more sensitive to substances which distort the local magnetic field than the GRE T2*W sequence, showed a higher sensitivity in identifying cerebral cavernous malformations. Thus, routine clinical neuroimaging protocol should contain SWI sequences to evaluate patients with (or suspected) cerebral cavernous malformations.
Authors: D Rigamonti; M N Hadley; B P Drayer; P C Johnson; K Hoenig-Rigamonti; J T Knight; R F Spetzler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1988-08-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fritz-Georg Lehnhardt; Ulrich von Smekal; Benedikt Rückriem; Werner Stenzel; Michael Neveling; Wolf-Dieter Heiss; Andreas H Jacobs Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-04
Authors: C Denier; S Goutagny; P Labauge; V Krivosic; M Arnoult; A Cousin; A L Benabid; J Comoy; P Frerebeau; B Gilbert; J P Houtteville; M Jan; F Lapierre; H Loiseau; P Menei; P Mercier; J J Moreau; A Nivelon-Chevallier; F Parker; A M Redondo; J M Scarabin; M Tremoulet; M Zerah; J Maciazek; E Tournier-Lasserve Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: J M Zabramski; T M Wascher; R F Spetzler; B Johnson; J Golfinos; B P Drayer; B Brown; D Rigamonti; G Brown Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Gianvincenzo Sparacia; Francesco Agnello; Giuseppe La Tona; Alberto Iaia; Federico Midiri; Benedetta Sparacia Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2017-05-02
Authors: Ana Filipa Geraldo; Cesar Augusto P F Alves; Aysha Luis; Domenico Tortora; Joana Guimarães; Daisy Abreu; Sofia Reimão; Marco Pavanello; Patrizia de Marco; Marcello Scala; Valeria Capra; Rui Vaz; Andrea Rossi; Erin Simon Schwartz; Kshitij Mankad; Mariasavina Severino Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 2.995
Authors: M C Mabray; J Starcevich; J Hallstrom; M Robinson; M Bartlett; J Nelson; A Zafar; H Kim; L Morrison; B L Hart Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 3.825