Margaret Spini1, Seongjin Choi2, Daniel M Harrison2,3. 1. School of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Use of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) scans to quantify multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion volume on 7 Tesla (7T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has many downsides, including poor image homogeneity. There are little data about the relative benefit of alternative modalities. The purpose of this paper is to investigate if magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echo (MP2RAGE) is a viable alternative to FLAIR for robust lesion volume measurement and disability correlations. METHODS: Forty-seven participants with MS underwent annual brain 7T MRIs. Magnetization-prepared FLAIR (MPFLAIR) and MP2RAGE (both at .7 mm3 isotropic resolution) sequences from a total of 80 MRI scans from 47 subjects were reviewed. White matter lesion (WML) masks were manually constructed from MPFLAIR and T1 maps (from MP2RAGE). Lesion volumes (normalized to intracranial volume) were compared to clinical characteristics and disability scales scores by Pearson or Spearman correlation, as appropriate. Relative correlation strength was compared by Fisher r- to z-transformation. RESULTS: Normalized lesion volume was greater in MPFLAIR masks (median .005 [range, .001-.030]) than from T1 maps (median .003 [range, .000-.015]). However, lesion volumes between MPFLAIR and T1 maps were highly correlated (rho = .87, P < .001). WML masks from both modalities correlated with most disability measures with no significant difference in the strength of correlation. CONCLUSIONS: 7T MPFLAIR and MP2RAGE T1 map-based WML volumes are highly intercorrelated and both correlate with disability. Thus, MP2RAGE may be a viable alternative to FLAIR-based methods for WML measurement on 7T MRI in MS research.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Use of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) scans to quantify multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion volume on 7 Tesla (7T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has many downsides, including poor image homogeneity. There are little data about the relative benefit of alternative modalities. The purpose of this paper is to investigate if magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echo (MP2RAGE) is a viable alternative to FLAIR for robust lesion volume measurement and disability correlations. METHODS: Forty-seven participants with MS underwent annual brain 7T MRIs. Magnetization-prepared FLAIR (MPFLAIR) and MP2RAGE (both at .7 mm3 isotropic resolution) sequences from a total of 80 MRI scans from 47 subjects were reviewed. White matter lesion (WML) masks were manually constructed from MPFLAIR and T1 maps (from MP2RAGE). Lesion volumes (normalized to intracranial volume) were compared to clinical characteristics and disability scales scores by Pearson or Spearman correlation, as appropriate. Relative correlation strength was compared by Fisher r- to z-transformation. RESULTS: Normalized lesion volume was greater in MPFLAIR masks (median .005 [range, .001-.030]) than from T1 maps (median .003 [range, .000-.015]). However, lesion volumes between MPFLAIR and T1 maps were highly correlated (rho = .87, P < .001). WML masks from both modalities correlated with most disability measures with no significant difference in the strength of correlation. CONCLUSIONS: 7T MPFLAIR and MP2RAGE T1 map-based WML volumes are highly intercorrelated and both correlate with disability. Thus, MP2RAGE may be a viable alternative to FLAIR-based methods for WML measurement on 7T MRI in MS research.
Authors: Florent Eggenschwiler; Tobias Kober; Arthur W Magill; Rolf Gruetter; José P Marques Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: I-Jun Chou; Su-Yin Lim; Radu Tanasescu; Ali Al-Radaideh; Olivier E Mougin; Christopher R Tench; William P Whitehouse; Penny A Gowland; Cris S Constantinescu Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Daniel M Harrison; Snehashis Roy; Jiwon Oh; Izlem Izbudak; Dzung Pham; Susan Courtney; Brian Caffo; Craig K Jones; Peter van Zijl; Peter A Calabresi Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: José P Marques; Tobias Kober; Gunnar Krueger; Wietske van der Zwaag; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Rolf Gruetter Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 6.556
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: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Brenda Banwell; Michel Clanet; Jeffrey A Cohen; Massimo Filippi; Kazuo Fujihara; Eva Havrdova; Michael Hutchinson; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Xavier Montalban; Paul O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.422