Y Yao1,2, T D Nguyen2, S Pandya2, Y Zhang1, S Hurtado Rúa3, I Kovanlikaya2, A Kuceyeski2, Z Liu2,4, Y Wang2,4, S A Gauthier5. 1. From the Department of Radiology (Y.Y., Y.Z.), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China. 2. Departments of Radiology (Y.Y., T.D.N., S.P., I.K., A.K., Z.L., Y.W.). 3. Department of Mathematics (S.H.R.), Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering (Z.L., Y.W.), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 5. Neurology (S.A.G.), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York sag2015@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A hyperintense rim on susceptibility in chronic MS lesions is consistent with iron deposition, and the purpose of this study was to quantify iron-related myelin damage within these lesions as compared with those without rim. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients had 2 longitudinal quantitative susceptibility mapping with automatic zero reference scans with a mean interval of 28.9 ± 11.4 months. Myelin water fraction mapping by using fast acquisition with spiral trajectory and T2 prep was obtained at the second time point to measure myelin damage. Mixed-effects models were used to assess lesion quantitative susceptibility mapping and myelin water fraction values. RESULTS: Quantitative susceptibility mapping scans were on average 6.8 parts per billion higher in 116 rim-positive lesions compared with 441 rim-negative lesions (P < .001). All rim-positive lesions retained a hyperintense rim over time, with increasing quantitative susceptibility mapping values of both the rim and core regions (P < .001). Quantitative susceptibility mapping scans and myelin water fraction in rim-positive lesions decreased from rim to core, which is consistent with rim iron deposition. Whole lesion myelin water fractions for rim-positive and rim-negative lesions were 0.055 ± 0.07 and 0.066 ± 0.04, respectively. In the mixed-effects model, rim-positive lesions had on average 0.01 lower myelin water fraction compared with rim-negative lesions (P < .001). The volume of the rim at the initial quantitative susceptibility mapping scan was negatively associated with follow-up myelin water fraction (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative susceptibility mapping rim-positive lesions maintained a hyperintense rim, increased in susceptibility, and had more myelin damage compared with rim-negative lesions. Our results are consistent with the identification of chronic active MS lesions and may provide a target for therapeutic interventions to reduce myelin damage.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A hyperintense rim on susceptibility in chronic MS lesions is consistent with iron deposition, and the purpose of this study was to quantify iron-related myelin damage within these lesions as compared with those without rim. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients had 2 longitudinal quantitative susceptibility mapping with automatic zero reference scans with a mean interval of 28.9 ± 11.4 months. Myelin water fraction mapping by using fast acquisition with spiral trajectory and T2 prep was obtained at the second time point to measure myelin damage. Mixed-effects models were used to assess lesion quantitative susceptibility mapping and myelin water fraction values. RESULTS: Quantitative susceptibility mapping scans were on average 6.8 parts per billion higher in 116 rim-positive lesions compared with 441 rim-negative lesions (P < .001). All rim-positive lesions retained a hyperintense rim over time, with increasing quantitative susceptibility mapping values of both the rim and core regions (P < .001). Quantitative susceptibility mapping scans and myelin water fraction in rim-positive lesions decreased from rim to core, which is consistent with rim iron deposition. Whole lesion myelin water fractions for rim-positive and rim-negative lesions were 0.055 ± 0.07 and 0.066 ± 0.04, respectively. In the mixed-effects model, rim-positive lesions had on average 0.01 lower myelin water fraction compared with rim-negative lesions (P < .001). The volume of the rim at the initial quantitative susceptibility mapping scan was negatively associated with follow-up myelin water fraction (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative susceptibility mapping rim-positive lesions maintained a hyperintense rim, increased in susceptibility, and had more myelin damage compared with rim-negative lesions. Our results are consistent with the identification of chronic active MS lesions and may provide a target for therapeutic interventions to reduce myelin damage.
Authors: J W Prineas; E E Kwon; E S Cho; L R Sharer; M H Barnett; E L Oleszak; B Hoffman; B P Morgan Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Karla Hopp; Bogdan F Gh Popescu; Richard P E McCrea; Sheri L Harder; Christopher A Robinson; Mark E Haacke; Ali H Rajput; Alex Rajput; Helen Nichol Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Lukas Haider; Marie T Fischer; Josa M Frischer; Jan Bauer; Romana Höftberger; Gergö Botond; Harald Esterbauer; Christoph J Binder; Joseph L Witztum; Hans Lassmann Journal: Brain Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Assunta Dal-Bianco; Günther Grabner; Claudia Kronnerwetter; Michael Weber; Romana Höftberger; Thomas Berger; Eduard Auff; Fritz Leutmezer; Siegfried Trattnig; Hans Lassmann; Francesca Bagnato; Simon Hametner Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Matthew John Cronin; Samuel Wharton; Ali Al-Radaideh; Cris Constantinescu; Nikos Evangelou; Richard Bowtell; Penny Anne Gowland Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Ulrike W Kaunzner; Yeona Kang; Shun Zhang; Eric Morris; Yihao Yao; Sneha Pandya; Sandra M Hurtado Rua; Calvin Park; Kelly M Gillen; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang; David Pitt; Susan A Gauthier Journal: Brain Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Charlotte L Beard; Joy M Schmitz; Heather E Soder; Robert Suchting; Jin H Yoon; Khader M Hasan; Ponnada A Narayana; F Gerard Moeller; Scott D Lane Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.492
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: Junghun Cho; Thanh D Nguyen; Weiyuan Huang; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Xianfu Luo; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Shun Zhang; Kelly M Gillen; Pascal Spincemaille; Ajay Gupta; Susan A Gauthier; Yi Wang Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 6.960
Authors: Weiyuan Huang; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Ulrike W Kaunzner; Yi Wang; Susan A Gauthier; Thanh D Nguyen Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: C Elliott; D L Arnold; H Chen; C Ke; L Zhu; I Chang; E Cahir-McFarland; E Fisher; B Zhu; S Gheuens; M Scaramozza; V Beynon; N Franchimont; D P Bradley; S Belachew Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Nikkita Khattar; Curtis Triebswetter; Matthew Kiely; Luigi Ferrucci; Susan M Resnick; Richard G Spencer; Mustapha Bouhrara Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 7.400