M Absinta1, P Sati1, A Fechner1,2, M K Schindler1, G Nair1, D S Reich3. 1. From the Translational Neuroradiology Section (M.A., P.S., A.F., M.K.S., G.N., D.S.R.), Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurovirology, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Department of Radiology (A.F.), Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France. 3. From the Translational Neuroradiology Section (M.A., P.S., A.F., M.K.S., G.N., D.S.R.), Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurovirology, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland daniel.reich@nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging-pathologic studies have reported that paramagnetic rims on 7T susceptibility-based MR imaging identify, in vivo, the subset of MS lesions with compartmentalized inflammation at the lesion edge and associated remyelination failure. Here, we assessed the reliability of detecting these rims on high-resolution 3T phase images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-resolution T2* and phase MR imaging was collected in 20 patients with MS at 3T (3D segmented EPI, 0.65 mm3) and 7T (2D gradient-echo, 0.2 × 0.2 × 1 mm) MR imaging. In each case, 5 discrete chronic (nonenhancing) MS lesions were selected on T2 FLAIR images for rim evaluation. Five raters experienced in MS imaging contributed to the rim assessment, of whom 3 worked independently on 3T data, and 2, on 7T data. Consensus agreement was reached for both 3T and 7T rim evaluations. Discrepancies between 3T and 7T were discussed, and consensus was reached. RESULTS: Phase rims were seen in 34 lesions at 7T and in 36 lesions at 3T by consensus. Inter- and intrarater reliability were "substantial/good" both at 3T and 7T analysis (Cohen κ, >0.71). Based on consensus agreement, the reliability of rim visualization at 3T versus 7T was 0.78 (κ) with a pair-wise agreement of 90%. More lesions were judged to be false-positive or false-negative at 3T than at 7T. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all 7T paramagnetic rims can also be seen at 3T. Imaging at 3T opens the possibility of implementing paramagnetic rims as an outcome measure in multicenter, MR imaging-based clinical trials aimed at treating perilesional persistent inflammation and its potential effects on remyelination.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging-pathologic studies have reported that paramagnetic rims on 7T susceptibility-based MR imaging identify, in vivo, the subset of MS lesions with compartmentalized inflammation at the lesion edge and associated remyelination failure. Here, we assessed the reliability of detecting these rims on high-resolution 3T phase images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-resolution T2* and phase MR imaging was collected in 20 patients with MS at 3T (3D segmented EPI, 0.65 mm3) and 7T (2D gradient-echo, 0.2 × 0.2 × 1 mm) MR imaging. In each case, 5 discrete chronic (nonenhancing) MS lesions were selected on T2 FLAIR images for rim evaluation. Five raters experienced in MS imaging contributed to the rim assessment, of whom 3 worked independently on 3T data, and 2, on 7T data. Consensus agreement was reached for both 3T and 7T rim evaluations. Discrepancies between 3T and 7T were discussed, and consensus was reached. RESULTS: Phase rims were seen in 34 lesions at 7T and in 36 lesions at 3T by consensus. Inter- and intrarater reliability were "substantial/good" both at 3T and 7T analysis (Cohen κ, >0.71). Based on consensus agreement, the reliability of rim visualization at 3T versus 7T was 0.78 (κ) with a pair-wise agreement of 90%. More lesions were judged to be false-positive or false-negative at 3T than at 7T. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all 7T paramagnetic rims can also be seen at 3T. Imaging at 3T opens the possibility of implementing paramagnetic rims as an outcome measure in multicenter, MR imaging-based clinical trials aimed at treating perilesional persistent inflammation and its potential effects on remyelination.
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: Kathryn E Hammond; Meredith Metcalf; Lucas Carvajal; Darin T Okuda; Radhika Srinivasan; Dan Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel Pelletier Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Assunta Dal-Bianco; Simon Hametner; Günther Grabner; Melanie Schernthaner; Claudia Kronnerwetter; Andreas Reitner; Clemens Vass; Karl Kircher; Eduard Auff; Fritz Leutmezer; Karl Vass; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David Pitt; Aaron Boster; Wei Pei; Eric Wohleb; Adam Jasne; Cherian R Zachariah; Kottil Rammohan; Michael V Knopp; Petra Schmalbrock Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2010-07
Authors: Andrew J Walsh; R Marc Lebel; Amir Eissa; Gregg Blevins; Ingrid Catz; Jian-Qiang Lu; Lothar Resch; Edward S Johnson; Derek J Emery; Kenneth G Warren; Alan H Wilman Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Amal P R Samaraweera; Margareta A Clarke; Amy Whitehead; Yasser Falah; Ian D Driver; Robert A Dineen; Paul S Morgan; Nikos Evangelou Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 2.486
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: Dejan Jakimovski; Murali Ramanathan; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Niels Bergsland; Deepa P Ramasamay; Ellen Carl; Michael G Dwyer; Robert Zivadinov Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: M A Clarke; D Pareto; L Pessini-Ferreira; G Arrambide; M Alberich; F Crescenzo; S Cappelle; M Tintoré; J Sastre-Garriga; C Auger; X Montalban; N Evangelou; À Rovira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Martina Absinta; Dragan Maric; Marjan Gharagozloo; Thomas Garton; Matthew D Smith; Jing Jin; Kathryn C Fitzgerald; Anya Song; Poching Liu; Jing-Ping Lin; Tianxia Wu; Kory R Johnson; Dorian B McGavern; Dorothy P Schafer; Peter A Calabresi; Daniel S Reich Journal: Nature Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 69.504
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: Caila B Vaughn; Dejan Jakimovski; Katelyn S Kavak; Murali Ramanathan; Ralph H B Benedict; Robert Zivadinov; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: C Ngamsombat; A L M Gonçalves Filho; M G F Longo; S F Cauley; K Setsompop; J E Kirsch; Q Tian; Q Fan; D Polak; W Liu; W-C Lo; R Gilberto González; P W Schaefer; O Rapalino; J Conklin; S Y Huang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 4.966