L L F do Amaral1,2, D C Fragoso3,4,5, R H Nunes3,4, I A Littig3, A J da Rocha3,4. 1. From the Division of Neuroradiology (L.L.F.A, D.C.F., R.H.N., I.A.L., A.J.R.), Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil neuro.medimagem@gmail.com. 2. Neuroradiology Department (L.L.F.A.), BP Medicina Diagnóstica, Hospital BP e BP Mirante da Beneficěncia Portuguesa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. From the Division of Neuroradiology (L.L.F.A, D.C.F., R.H.N., I.A.L., A.J.R.), Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Division of Neuroradiology (D.C.F., R.H.N., A.J.R.), Diagnósticos da América S.A. - DASA, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Division of Neuroradiology (D.C.F.), Fleury S.A., São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Gadolinium SWI is MR imaging that has recently been reported to be effective in the evaluation of several neurologic disorders, including demyelinating diseases. Our aim was to analyze the accuracy of gadolinium SWI for detecting the imaging evidence of active inflammation on MS plaques when a BBB dysfunction is demonstrated by a focal gadolinium-enhanced lesion and to compare this technique with gadolinium-enhanced T1 spin-echo and T1 spin-echo with magnetization transfer contrast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging studies of 103 patients (170 examinations) were performed using a 1.5T scanner. Two neuroradiologists scrutinized signal abnormalities of the demyelinating plaques on gadolinium SWI and compared them with gadolinium T1 before and after an additional magnetization transfer pulse. Interrater agreement was evaluated among gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast, gadolinium SWI, and gadolinium T1 spin-echo using the κ coefficient. The T1 magnetization transfer contrast sequence was adopted as the criterion standard in this cohort. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for gadolinium T1 spin-echo and gadolinium SWI sequences. RESULTS: Differences in BBB dysfunction were evident among gadolinium SWI, gadolinium T1 spin-echo, and gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast. Gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast demonstrated the highest number of active demyelinating plaques. Gadolinium SWI was highly correlated with gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast in depicting acute demyelinating plaques (κ coefficient = 0.860; sensitivity = 0.837), and these techniques provided better performance compared with gadolinium T1 spin-echo (κ coefficient = 0.78; sensitivity = 0.645). CONCLUSIONS: Gadolinium SWI was able to better detect BBB dysfunction in MS plaques and had a better performance than gadolinium T1 spin-echo. Increasing SWI sequence applications in clinical practice can improve our knowledge of MS, likely allowing the addition of BBB dysfunction analysis to the striking findings of the previously reported central vein sign.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Gadolinium SWI is MR imaging that has recently been reported to be effective in the evaluation of several neurologic disorders, including demyelinating diseases. Our aim was to analyze the accuracy of gadolinium SWI for detecting the imaging evidence of active inflammation on MS plaques when a BBB dysfunction is demonstrated by a focal gadolinium-enhanced lesion and to compare this technique with gadolinium-enhanced T1 spin-echo and T1 spin-echo with magnetization transfer contrast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging studies of 103 patients (170 examinations) were performed using a 1.5T scanner. Two neuroradiologists scrutinized signal abnormalities of the demyelinating plaques on gadolinium SWI and compared them with gadolinium T1 before and after an additional magnetization transfer pulse. Interrater agreement was evaluated among gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast, gadolinium SWI, and gadolinium T1 spin-echo using the κ coefficient. The T1 magnetization transfer contrast sequence was adopted as the criterion standard in this cohort. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for gadolinium T1 spin-echo and gadolinium SWI sequences. RESULTS: Differences in BBB dysfunction were evident among gadolinium SWI, gadolinium T1 spin-echo, and gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast. Gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast demonstrated the highest number of active demyelinating plaques. Gadolinium SWI was highly correlated with gadolinium T1 magnetization transfer contrast in depicting acute demyelinating plaques (κ coefficient = 0.860; sensitivity = 0.837), and these techniques provided better performance compared with gadolinium T1 spin-echo (κ coefficient = 0.78; sensitivity = 0.645). CONCLUSIONS:Gadolinium SWI was able to better detect BBB dysfunction in MS plaques and had a better performance than gadolinium T1 spin-echo. Increasing SWI sequence applications in clinical practice can improve our knowledge of MS, likely allowing the addition of BBB dysfunction analysis to the striking findings of the previously reported central vein sign.
Authors: A G Kermode; A J Thompson; P Tofts; D G MacManus; B E Kendall; D P Kingsley; I F Moseley; P Rudge; W I McDonald Journal: Brain Date: 1990-10 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Àlex Rovira; David Miller; Tarek A Yousry; Maria P Sormani; Maria P de Stefano; Mar Tintoré; Cristina Auger; Carmen Tur; Massimo Filippi; Maria A Rocca; Franz Fazekas; Ludwig Kappos; Chris Polman Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Alexander Rauscher; Jan Sedlacik; Markus Barth; Hans-Joachim Mentzel; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alan J Thompson; Brenda L Banwell; Frederik Barkhof; William M Carroll; Timothy Coetzee; Giancarlo Comi; Jorge Correale; Franz Fazekas; Massimo Filippi; Mark S Freedman; Kazuo Fujihara; Steven L Galetta; Hans Peter Hartung; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Ruth Ann Marrie; Aaron E Miller; David H Miller; Xavier Montalban; Ellen M Mowry; Per Soelberg Sorensen; Mar Tintoré; Anthony L Traboulsee; Maria Trojano; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Sandra Vukusic; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian G Weinshenker; Stephen C Reingold; Jeffrey A Cohen Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: N C Silver; C D Good; G J Barker; D G MacManus; A J Thompson; I F Moseley; W I McDonald; D H Miller Journal: Brain Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Delia Fahrendorf; Wolfram Schwindt; Johannes Wölfer; Astrid Jeibmann; Hendrik Kooijman; Harald Kugel; Oliver Grauer; Walter Heindel; Volker Hesselmann; Andrea Bink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Y Zhang; S A Gauthier; A Gupta; L Tu; J Comunale; G C-Y Chiang; W Chen; C A Salustri; W Zhu; Y Wang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 3.825