A Hagiwara1,2, M Hori3, K Yokoyama4, M Y Takemura3, C Andica3, T Tabata3, K Kamagata3, M Suzuki3, K K Kumamaru3, M Nakazawa3,5, N Takano3, H Kawasaki3, N Hamasaki3, A Kunimatsu2, S Aoki3. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (A.H., M.H., M.Y.T., C.A., T.T., K.K., M.S., K.K.K., M.N., N.T., H.K., N.H., S.A.) ahagiwara-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Radiology (A.H., A.K.), Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 3. From the Departments of Radiology (A.H., M.H., M.Y.T., C.A., T.T., K.K., M.S., K.K.K., M.N., N.T., H.K., N.H., S.A.). 4. Neurology (K.Y.), Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Radiological Sciences (M.N.), Graduate School of Human Health Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Synthetic MR imaging enables the creation of various contrast-weighted images including double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery from a single MR imaging quantification scan. Here, we assessed whether synthetic MR imaging is suitable for detecting MS plaques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative and conventional MR imaging data on 12 patients with MS were retrospectively analyzed. Synthetic T2-weighted, FLAIR, double inversion recovery, and phase-sensitive inversion recovery images were produced after quantification of T1 and T2 values and proton density. Double inversion recovery images were optimized for each patient by adjusting the TI. The number of visible plaques was determined by a radiologist for a set of these 4 types of synthetic MR images and a set of conventional T1-weighted inversion recovery, T2-weighted, and FLAIR images. Conventional 3D double inversion recovery and other available images were used as the criterion standard. The total acquisition time of synthetic MR imaging was 7 minutes 12 seconds and that of conventional MR imaging was 6 minutes 29 seconds The lesion-to-WM contrast and lesion-to-WM contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated and compared between synthetic and conventional double inversion recovery images. RESULTS: The total plaques detected by synthetic and conventional MR images were 157 and 139, respectively (P = .014). The lesion-to-WM contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio on synthetic double inversion recovery images were superior to those on conventional double inversion recovery images (P = .001 and < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic MR imaging enabled detection of more MS plaques than conventional MR imaging in a comparable acquisition time. The contrast for MS plaques on synthetic double inversion recovery images was better than on conventional double inversion recovery images.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Synthetic MR imaging enables the creation of various contrast-weighted images including double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery from a single MR imaging quantification scan. Here, we assessed whether synthetic MR imaging is suitable for detecting MS plaques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative and conventional MR imaging data on 12 patients with MS were retrospectively analyzed. Synthetic T2-weighted, FLAIR, double inversion recovery, and phase-sensitive inversion recovery images were produced after quantification of T1 and T2 values and proton density. Double inversion recovery images were optimized for each patient by adjusting the TI. The number of visible plaques was determined by a radiologist for a set of these 4 types of synthetic MR images and a set of conventional T1-weighted inversion recovery, T2-weighted, and FLAIR images. Conventional 3D double inversion recovery and other available images were used as the criterion standard. The total acquisition time of synthetic MR imaging was 7 minutes 12 seconds and that of conventional MR imaging was 6 minutes 29 seconds The lesion-to-WM contrast and lesion-to-WM contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated and compared between synthetic and conventional double inversion recovery images. RESULTS: The total plaques detected by synthetic and conventional MR images were 157 and 139, respectively (P = .014). The lesion-to-WM contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio on synthetic double inversion recovery images were superior to those on conventional double inversion recovery images (P = .001 and < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic MR imaging enabled detection of more MS plaques than conventional MR imaging in a comparable acquisition time. The contrast for MS plaques on synthetic double inversion recovery images was better than on conventional double inversion recovery images.
Authors: Ping Hou; Khader M Hasan; Clark W Sitton; Jerry S Wolinsky; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M P Wattjes; G G Lutterbey; J Gieseke; F Träber; L Klotz; S Schmidt; H H Schild Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T Granberg; M Uppman; F Hashim; C Cananau; L E Nordin; S Shams; J Berglund; Y Forslin; P Aspelin; S Fredrikson; M Kristoffersen-Wiberg Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Gilles Edan; Massimo Filippi; Hans-Peter Hartung; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Luanne M Metz; Henry F McFarland; Paul W O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Brian G Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.422
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: A Hagiwara; M Hori; K Yokoyama; M Nakazawa; R Ueda; M Horita; C Andica; O Abe; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Francesc Xavier Aymerich; Cristina Auger; Julio Alonso; Andrea Barros; Margareta A Clarke; Juan Mora; Georgina Arrambide; Juan Francisco Corral; Ana Andrino; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Alex Rovira Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: S Fujita; K Yokoyama; A Hagiwara; S Kato; C Andica; K Kamagata; N Hattori; O Abe; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.825