G Sadigh1, A M Saindane2, A D Waldman2, N S Lava3, R Hu2. 1. From the Departments of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (G.S., A.M.S., A.D.W., R.H.) gsadigh@emory.edu. 2. From the Departments of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (G.S., A.M.S., A.D.W., R.H.). 3. Neurology (N.S.L.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Gadolinium enhanced MRI is routinely used for follow-up of patients with multiple sclerosis. Our aim was to evaluate whether enhancing multiple sclerosis lesions on follow-up MR imaging can be detected by visual assessment of unenhanced double inversion recovery and FLAIR sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 252 consecutive MRIs in 172 adult patients with a known diagnosis of multiple sclerosis were reviewed. The co-presence or absence of associated double inversion recovery and FLAIR signal abnormality within contrast-enhancing lesions was recorded by 3 neuroradiologists. In a subset of patients with prior comparisons, the number of progressive lesions on each of the 3 sequences was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 34 of 252 MRIs (13%) demonstrated 55 enhancing lesions, of which 52 (95%) had corresponding hyperintensity on double inversion recovery and FLAIR. All lesions were concordant between double inversion recovery and FLAIR, and the 3 enhancing lesions not visible on either sequence were small (<2 mm) and cortical/subcortical (n = 2) or periventricular (n = 1). A total of 17 (22%) of the 76 MRIs with a prior comparison had imaging evidence of disease progression: Ten (59%) of these showed new lesions on double inversion recovery or FLAIR only, 6 (35%) showed progression on all sequences, and 1 (6%) was detectable only on postcontrast T1, being located in a region of confluent double inversion recovery and FLAIR abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high concordance between enhancing lesions and hyperintensity on either double inversion recovery or FLAIR. Serial follow-up using double inversion recovery or FLAIR alone may capture most imaging progression, but isolated enhancing lesions in confluent areas of white matter abnormality could present a pitfall for this approach.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Gadolinium enhanced MRI is routinely used for follow-up of patients with multiple sclerosis. Our aim was to evaluate whether enhancing multiple sclerosis lesions on follow-up MR imaging can be detected by visual assessment of unenhanced double inversion recovery and FLAIR sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 252 consecutive MRIs in 172 adult patients with a known diagnosis of multiple sclerosis were reviewed. The co-presence or absence of associated double inversion recovery and FLAIR signal abnormality within contrast-enhancing lesions was recorded by 3 neuroradiologists. In a subset of patients with prior comparisons, the number of progressive lesions on each of the 3 sequences was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 34 of 252 MRIs (13%) demonstrated 55 enhancing lesions, of which 52 (95%) had corresponding hyperintensity on double inversion recovery and FLAIR. All lesions were concordant between double inversion recovery and FLAIR, and the 3 enhancing lesions not visible on either sequence were small (<2 mm) and cortical/subcortical (n = 2) or periventricular (n = 1). A total of 17 (22%) of the 76 MRIs with a prior comparison had imaging evidence of disease progression: Ten (59%) of these showed new lesions on double inversion recovery or FLAIR only, 6 (35%) showed progression on all sequences, and 1 (6%) was detectable only on postcontrast T1, being located in a region of confluent double inversion recovery and FLAIR abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high concordance between enhancing lesions and hyperintensity on either double inversion recovery or FLAIR. Serial follow-up using double inversion recovery or FLAIR alone may capture most imaging progression, but isolated enhancing lesions in confluent areas of white matter abnormality could present a pitfall for this approach.
Authors: Maria Pia Sormani; Laura Bonzano; Luca Roccatagliata; Gary R Cutter; Gian Luigi Mancardi; Paolo Bruzzi Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: H Kang; M Hii; M Le; R Tam; A Riddehough; A Traboulsee; S Kolind; M S Freedman; D K B Li Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Filippi; M Rovaris; S Bastianello; C Gasperini; D Origgi; P Reganati; C Pozzilli; G Comi Journal: J Neurol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: A Traboulsee; J H Simon; L Stone; E Fisher; D E Jones; A Malhotra; S D Newsome; J Oh; D S Reich; N Richert; K Rammohan; O Khan; E-W Radue; C Ford; J Halper; D Li Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kianush Karimian-Jazi; Brigitte Wildemann; Ricarda Diem; Daniel Schwarz; Thomas Hielscher; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus; Michael O Breckwoldt Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2018-07-16
Authors: L Danieli; L Roccatagliata; D Distefano; E Prodi; G C Riccitelli; A Diociasi; L Carmisciano; A Cianfoni; T Bartalena; A Kaelin-Lang; C Gobbi; C Zecca; E Pravatà Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: T Campbell Arnold; Danni Tu; Serhat V Okar; Govind Nair; Samantha By; Karan D Kawatra; Timothy E Robert-Fitzgerald; Lisa M Desiderio; Matthew K Schindler; Russell T Shinohara; Daniel S Reich; Joel M Stein Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.891