Sven Haller1,2, Max Scheffler3, Rares Salomir3, François R Herrmann4, Gabriel Gold4, Marie-Louise Montandon4,5, Enikö Kövari5. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. sven.haller@me.com. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences, Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. sven.haller@me.com. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cerebral microbleeds (CMB) play an important role as an imaging biomarker notably in vascular and neurodegenerative diseases. Current clinical brain MRI underestimates the number of CMB with respect to histopathology. It is expected that small CMBs are more likely to be false-negatives, yet this has not been demonstrated and the average size of false-negative and true-positive CMBs have not been established. METHODS: The radiologic-histopathologic correlation study was approved by the local review board and included 42 consecutive cases (mean age at death, 80.7 ± 10.0 years; 23 females and 19 men) between 12 January 2012 and 10 December 2012 having undergone brain autopsy. Postmortem SWI (susceptibility-weighted imaging) images were acquired on a clinical 3T system using parameters similar to clinical routine. The detection of CMB on postmortem MRI was compared with corresponding histopathological slices. RESULTS: Postmortem MRI detected 23 true-positive CMB. Histopathology additionally detected 68 CMBs (false-negative MRI CMBs). The average size true-positive MRI CMBs had on histopathology was 3.6 ± 7.1 mm3. The average size false-negative MRI CMBs was significantly smaller (p < 0.05), measuring 0.3 ± 1.2 mm3 on histopathology. CONCLUSION: Size matters. As expected, the average size of true-positive MRI CMB was around 10 times larger as compared with false-negative MRI CMB. Evidently, in addition to size, other factors will influence the detectability of CMB, including iron content, ratio of Fe2+/Fe3+, spatial configuration, and location, yet this remains to be elucidated in future studies.
PURPOSE: Cerebral microbleeds (CMB) play an important role as an imaging biomarker notably in vascular and neurodegenerative diseases. Current clinical brain MRI underestimates the number of CMB with respect to histopathology. It is expected that small CMBs are more likely to be false-negatives, yet this has not been demonstrated and the average size of false-negative and true-positive CMBs have not been established. METHODS: The radiologic-histopathologic correlation study was approved by the local review board and included 42 consecutive cases (mean age at death, 80.7 ± 10.0 years; 23 females and 19 men) between 12 January 2012 and 10 December 2012 having undergone brain autopsy. Postmortem SWI (susceptibility-weighted imaging) images were acquired on a clinical 3T system using parameters similar to clinical routine. The detection of CMB on postmortem MRI was compared with corresponding histopathological slices. RESULTS: Postmortem MRI detected 23 true-positive CMB. Histopathology additionally detected 68 CMBs (false-negative MRI CMBs). The average size true-positive MRI CMBs had on histopathology was 3.6 ± 7.1 mm3. The average size false-negative MRI CMBs was significantly smaller (p < 0.05), measuring 0.3 ± 1.2 mm3 on histopathology. CONCLUSION: Size matters. As expected, the average size of true-positive MRI CMB was around 10 times larger as compared with false-negative MRI CMB. Evidently, in addition to size, other factors will influence the detectability of CMB, including iron content, ratio of Fe2+/Fe3+, spatial configuration, and location, yet this remains to be elucidated in future studies.
Authors: Jeroen D C Goos; Wiesje M van der Flier; Dirk L Knol; Petra J W Pouwels; Philip Scheltens; Frederik Barkhof; Mike P Wattjes Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Sven Haller; Meike W Vernooij; Joost P A Kuijer; Elna-Marie Larsson; Hans Rolf Jäger; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew Schrag; Grant McAuley; Justine Pomakian; Arshad Jiffry; Spencer Tung; Claudius Mueller; Harry V Vinters; E Mark Haacke; Barbara Holshouser; Daniel Kido; Wolff M Kirsch Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: S Sveinbjornsdottir; S Sigurdsson; T Aspelund; O Kjartansson; G Eiriksdottir; B Valtysdottir; O L Lopez; M A van Buchem; P V Jonsson; V Gudnason; L J Launer Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2008-02-12 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: F Fazekas; R Kleinert; G Roob; G Kleinert; P Kapeller; R Schmidt; H P Hartung Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: I Barnaure; M-L Montandon; C Rodriguez; F Herrmann; K O Lövblad; P Giannakopoulos; S Haller Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sven Haller; Marie-Louise Montandon; François Lazeyras; Max Scheffler; Stephan Meckel; Francois R Herrmann; Panteleimon Giannakopoulos; Enikö Kövari Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240