R C Mehta1, G B Pike, D R Enzmann. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA 94305, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To define the percentage of magnetization transfer of multiple sclerosis (MS) plaques, ischemic white matter lesions, and vasogenic edema to determine whether this measurement can help differentiate these entities. METHODS: Findings were compared in 25 patients with proved MS, 20 patients with white matter ischemic lesions, and 72 patients with white matter edema (caused by tumors, infections, or acute/subacute infarctions) in the periventricular system, centrum semiovale, and subcortical white matter. Magnetization transfer was performed using an on-resonance binomial pulse. The percentage of magnetization transfer of the normal white matter was also calculated. RESULTS: Magnetization transfer was significantly higher in white matter ischemic lesions (range, 31% to 38%; mean, 34% +/- 0.6%) than in demyelinating plaques of MS (range, 19% to 28%; mean, 22.5% +/- 1%) and in edema (range, 29% to 37%; mean, 30.2% +/- 0.4%). No statistical difference in percentage of magnetization transfer was found among lesions in the periventricular system (34% +/- 0.6%), centrum semiovale (35% +/- 0.5%), or subcortical white matter (33% +/- 0.6%), or in vasogenic edema associated with tumors, infections, or infarction. CONCLUSION: Differences in magnetization transfer suggest less change of demyelination in white matter ischemic lesions than in MS plaques and are significantly different in this respect from similar MS plaques. Magnetization transfer of edema was less than that of normal white matter or fell between ischemic abnormalities and MS plaques. Percentages of magnetization transfer below the mid-20% range is highly suggestive of demyelination. Vasogenic edema, our surrogate for increased water content of white matter, caused a decrease in the percentage of magnetization transfer.
PURPOSE: To define the percentage of magnetization transfer of multiple sclerosis (MS) plaques, ischemic white matter lesions, and vasogenic edema to determine whether this measurement can help differentiate these entities. METHODS: Findings were compared in 25 patients with proved MS, 20 patients with white matter ischemic lesions, and 72 patients with white matter edema (caused by tumors, infections, or acute/subacute infarctions) in the periventricular system, centrum semiovale, and subcortical white matter. Magnetization transfer was performed using an on-resonance binomial pulse. The percentage of magnetization transfer of the normal white matter was also calculated. RESULTS: Magnetization transfer was significantly higher in white matter ischemic lesions (range, 31% to 38%; mean, 34% +/- 0.6%) than in demyelinating plaques of MS (range, 19% to 28%; mean, 22.5% +/- 1%) and in edema (range, 29% to 37%; mean, 30.2% +/- 0.4%). No statistical difference in percentage of magnetization transfer was found among lesions in the periventricular system (34% +/- 0.6%), centrum semiovale (35% +/- 0.5%), or subcortical white matter (33% +/- 0.6%), or in vasogenic edema associated with tumors, infections, or infarction. CONCLUSION: Differences in magnetization transfer suggest less change of demyelination in white matter ischemic lesions than in MS plaques and are significantly different in this respect from similar MS plaques. Magnetization transfer of edema was less than that of normal white matter or fell between ischemic abnormalities and MS plaques. Percentages of magnetization transfer below the mid-20% range is highly suggestive of demyelination. Vasogenic edema, our surrogate for increased water content of white matter, caused a decrease in the percentage of magnetization transfer.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; Y Ge; Y Shigematsu; L Liang; K Yoshizumi; M Kitajima; M Takahashi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Antônio José da Rocha; Fabiano Reis; Hugo Pereira Pinto Gama; Carlos Jorge da Silva; Flávio Túlio Braga; Antônio Carlos Martins Maia; Fernando Cendes Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2006-08-30 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: A Spilt; R Goekoop; R G J Westendorp; G J Blauw; A J M de Craen; M A van Buchem Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Aart Spilt; Tychon Geeraedts; Anton J M de Craen; Rudi G J Westendorp; Gerard J Blauw; Mark A van Buchem Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N Tambasco; G P Pelliccioli; P Chiarini; G E Montanari; F Leone; M L Mancini; M Paciaroni; V Gallai Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2003-02-21 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: J L Tanabe; F Ezekiel; W J Jagust; B R Reed; D Norman; N Schuff; M W Weiner; H Chui; G Fein Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 3.825