| Literature DB >> 33815251 |
Ji Eun Park1, E-Nae Cheong2, Da Eun Jung3, Woo Hyun Shim1,3, Ji Sung Lee4.
Abstract
Objective: 7 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enables high resolution imaging and potentially improves the detection of morphologic abnormalities in patients with epilepsy. However, its added value compared with conventional 1.5T and 3.0T MRI is unclear. We reviewed the evidence for the use of 7 Tesla MRI in patients with epilepsy and compared the detection rate of focal lesions with clinical MRI.Entities:
Keywords: 7 Tesla; epilepsy; magnetic resonance imaging; systematic review; ultra-high field
Year: 2021 PMID: 33815251 PMCID: PMC8017213 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.621936
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Baseline characteristics of 25 studies with 7T MRI included in this analysis.
| 1 | Henry et al. ( | Case-control | Qualitative/anithaQuantitative | Magnex, Oxford, England | 3D MPRAGE | FSE | - | - | TLE (HS) | - | 11 | 5:6 | 26 | 13 | 8:5 | 28 | |
| 2 | Pan et al. ( | Cohort | Quantitative | Varian,anitha Agilent Technologies, USA | IR-GRE | - | - | MRSI | Focal | - | 25 | 7:18 | 33.9 | - | - | - | |
| 3 | De Ciantis et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Excite HDx, GE Healthcare, USA | 3D FSPGR | T2 FSE, FLAIR | 2D GRE 3D SWAN | 2D FSE-IR | Polymicrogyria | - | 10 | 4:6 | 30.1 | - | - | - | |
| 4 | Colon et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Achieva, Philips, Netherlands | 3D | T2 TSE, FLAIR | GRE | - | FCD* | - | 11 | 7:4 | 37.3 | - | - | - | |
| 5 | De Ciantis et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Discovery 950 MRI, GE Healthcare, USA | 3D FSPGR | T2 FSE, 3D FLAIR | 2D GRE 3D SWAN | 2D FSE-IR | Focal | Yes | 21 | 12:9 | 24.2 | - | - | - | |
| 6 | Grouiller et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MP2RAGE | - | 2D SWI | EEG-fMRI | Focal, lesional | Yes | 9 | 7:2 | 25.9 | - | - | - | |
| 7 | Kwan et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Agilent, Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE | - | SWI | - | TLE | - | 13 | 7:6 | 31.5 | - | - | - | |
| 8 | Springer et al. ( | Case-control, Add-on | Qualitative/anithaQuantitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | MP2RAGE | T2 TSE, FLAIR TSE | 2D GRE | DWI | Focal Lesional or non-lesional | - | 9 | Unknown | Unknown | 10 | 6:4 | 27.5 | |
| 9 | Veersema et al. ( | Case series | Qualitative | Philips, OH, USA | 3D | 3D | 2D GRE | 3D DIR | FCD | Yes | 6 | 2:4 | 21 | - | - | - | |
| 10 | O'Hallloran et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Unknown | 3D MP2RAGE | - | - | DTI | Focal, non-lesional | - | 8 | 4:4 | 33 | 8 | 6:2 | 39 | |
| 11 | Santyr et al. ( | Case-control | Qualitative/anithaQuantitative | Agilent, Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE | - | - | - | TLE | - | 13 | 7:6 | 33.5 | 20 | 10:10 | 31.2 | |
| 12 | Stefanits et al. ( | Case series | Qualitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | - | T2 FSE | - | - | TLE | - | 13 | 8:5 | 38.7 | - | - | - | |
| 13 | Veersema et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Achieva, Philips, Netherlands | 3D MPRAGE | 3D T2, 3D FLAIR | GRE | Focal, Lesional or non-lesional | - | 40 | Unknown | 18 | - | - | - | ||
| 14 | Voets et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE | - | SWI | MRS | TLE | - | 12 | 7:5 | 35.2 | 12 | 3:9 | 29.5 | |
| 15 | Feldman et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | - | T2 TSE | - | - | Focal, Lesional, MRI-negative | - | 21 | 13: 8 | 33 | 17 | 11:6 | 33 | |
| 16 | Obusez et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MP2RAGE | 2D TSE | 3D SWI | - | Focal, Lesional | Yes | 55 | 36:19 | 31.2 | - | - | - | |
| 17 | Pittau et al. ( | Case series | Qualitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MP2RAGE | FLAIR | 3D SWI | DTI | Focal, Lesional | - | 7 | 4:3 | 24.8 | - | - | - | |
| 18 | Rutland et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MP2RAGE | T2 TSE | - | DTI | Focal, MRI-negative | - | 25 | 9:16 | 31.2 | 25 | 9: 16 | 31.7 | |
| 19 | Sun et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE | 2D T2 TSE, 3D FLAIR | 3D SWI | - | Tuberous sclerosis | Yes | 10 | 5:5 | 13.2 | - | - | - | |
| 20 | Bartolini et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Discovery 950 MRI, GE Healthcare, USA | 3D MPRAGE | 2D T2 FSE, 3D FLAIR | 3D SWAN, 2D GRE | - | FCD | Yes | 12 | 7:5 | 23.3 | - | - | - | |
| 21 | Feldman et al. ( | Case-control, Add-on | Qualitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE, MP2RAGE | 2D T2 TSE, 3D FLAIR | 2D SWI | - | Focal, Lesional | Yes | 37 | 20:17 | 36.1 | 21 | 15:6 | 34 | |
| 22 | Shah et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE | T2 TSE | - | BOLD fMRI | Focal | Yes | 13 | 3:10 | 45.4 | 24 | Unknown | Unknown | |
| 23 | Zhang et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Unknown, Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE | T2 FSE | - | - | TLE | Yes | 39 | 20: 19 | 27.0 | - | - | - | |
| 24 | Feldman et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Magnetom, Siemens, Germany | 3D MPRAGE | - | 3D SWI | Focal, MRI-negative | - | 34 | 14:20 | 37 | 17 | 7:10 | 37 | ||
| 25 | Lampinen et al. ( | Case series | Quantitative | Achieva, Philips, Netherlands | 3D TFE | 3D FLAIR | - | DTI | FCD | Yes | 13 | 8:5 | 32 | - | - | - | |
FSPGR, fast-spoiled gradient echo; MPRAGE, magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo; MP2RAGE, variation of magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo; TLE, Temporal lobe epilepsy; FCD, Focal cortical dysplasia; yr, year; N = number.
Summary of 7T Epilepsy Study on 7T according to study endpoint.
| 3 | De Ciantis et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Detection | 3 in consensus | Count | 4/6 new bilateral detection | ||||
| 5 | De Ciantis et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Detection | 3 in consensus | Count | 6/21 new detection | ||||
| 7 | Kwan et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Detection | 1 | Count | 13/13 (7T) 10/13 (1.5 or 3.0T) | ||||
| 9 | Veersema et al. ( | Case series | Qualitative | Detection | Unknown | Count | 4/6 (7T) 2/6 (3.0T) | ||||
| 11 | Santyr et al. ( | Case-control | Qualitative/anithaQuantitative | Detection, Morphologic abnormalities | 2 | 4-point scale | 6/9 new detection | Hippocampal volumetry | Per subregion | Per subregion | |
| 12 | Stefanits et al. ( | Case series | Qualitative | Morphologic abnormalities | 4 | Binomial rating | 8/13 detection no 3.0T | ||||
| 13 | Veersema et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Detection | 1 | Count | 9/40 new detection | ||||
| 20 | Bartolini et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Detection | 2 in consensus | Count | 10/12 detection (7T) vs. 9/12 detection (3T) | ||||
| 21 | Feldman et al. ( | Case-control, Add-on | Qualitative | Detection | 2 in consensus | Count | 25/37 new detection | ||||
| 1 | Henry et al. ( | Case-control | Qualitative/anithaQuantitative | Hippocampal digitations | 2 | Likert scale | 0.93 (intrarater)/0.80 (interrater) | Subregional volume | (ictal, CA1-3) 130 mm3 | (CA1-3) 2383 (CA4- dentate) 172mm3 | |
| 4 | Colon et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | 7x2 morphologic features | 3 | Likert scale | Superior 7 out of 14 items | ||||
| 8 | Springer et al. ( | Case-control, Add-on | Qualitative/anithaQuantitative | Morphologic abnormalities | 2 | Diagnostic confidence scale ( | Interrater 92.3 % (7T)/57.7% (3T) | CNR, SNR | Per modality | Per modality | |
| 16 | Obusez et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Lesion conspicuity | 10 | 5-point scale | More conspicuous on 7.0 T than 3.0T | ||||
| 17 | Pittau et al. ( | Case series | Qualitative | Lesion conspicuity | Unknown | Descriptive | More conspicuous on 7.0 T than 3.0T | ||||
| 19 | Sun et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Lesion conspicuity | 3 in consensus | Descriptive | More conspicuous on 7.0 T than 3.0T | ||||
| 23 | Zhang et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Morphologic abnormalities | 1 | 4-rating system | Higher score on 7T than 3T | ||||
| 2 | Pan et al. ( | Cohort | Quantitative | MRSI NAA/Cr > cutoff | 1 | Count of voxels | PPV 100%, NPV 73%, Sens 82%, Spec 100% | NAA/Cr | 1.32 ± 0.10 | 1.21 ± 0.13 | |
| 6 | Grouiller et al. ( | Case study, Add-on | Qualitative | Mapping of eloquent cortex | Unknown | Voxels | Same with 1.5T or 3.0T | ||||
| 10 | O'Hallloran et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | U-fiber count | 1,500 | 1,700 | |||||
| 14 | Voets et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Hippocampal volumetry, metabolites (glutamate) | Per subregion | Per subregion | |||||
| 15 | Feldman et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Perivascular space, count | 1,603 | 1,902 | |||||
| 18 | Rutland et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Fiber density | Per subregion | Per subregion | |||||
| 22 | Shah et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Hippocampal volumetry, connectivity | Per subregion | Per subregion | |||||
| 24 | Feldman et al. ( | Case-control | Quantitative | Vessel density (cm3) | 2.1–2.4 | 2.7 | |||||
| 25 | Lampinen et al. ( | Case series | Quantitative | Diffusion parameter (FA, MK) | Per disease | Per disease | |||||
HIA, hippocampal asymmetry score; N, number; FA, fractional anisotropy; MK, mean kurtosis; CNR, contrast-to-noise ratio; SNR, signal-to-noise ratio; NAA, N-acetylacetate.
Figure 2Forest plots show the comparison of the detection rate on 3.0T (A) and 7.0T (B) MRI. Overall detection rates of 7T and 3T MRI are 65 and 22%, respectively, showing a statistically significant difference.