Detection of multiple sclerosis lesions in the cervical cord: which of the MAGNIMS 'mandatory' non-gadolinium enhanced sagittal sequences is optimal at 3T?
MRI
Multiple sclerosis
cervical
spinal cord
Journal
The neuroradiology journal
ISSN: 2385-1996
Titre abrégé: Neuroradiol J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101295103
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
21
5
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
20
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis consensus guidelines currently mandate three sagittal non-contrast enhanced sequences of T2-weighted fast spin echo, proton density-weighted fast spin echo and short tau inversion recovery; however, these particular three sequences have not previously been compared at 3T. This study compared T2-weighted fast spin echo, proton density-weighted fast spin echo, short tau inversion recovery as well as the double inversion recovery sequence for the sagittal detection of multiple sclerosis lesions in the cervical spinal cord at 3T. Nineteen multiple sclerosis patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging with 3T sagittal T2-weighted fast spin echo, proton density-weighted fast spin echo, short tau inversion recovery and double inversion recovery between November 2012 and April 2013. Two neuroradiologists independently reviewed the images, and the number of lesions detected on each sequence was recorded. Lesion conspicuity was quantitatively assessed with the lesion-to-cord-contrast ratio and lesion contrast-to-noise ratio. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed for statistical analysis. Proton density-weighted fast spin echo and short tau inversion recovery detected 32% more lesions compared to T2-weighted fast spin echo, and 37% more lesions compared to double inversion recovery. The lesion-to-cord-contrast ratio was highest in short tau inversion recovery, while the lesion contrast-to-noise ratio was highest for proton density-weighted fast spin echo. This study provides the necessary evidentiary support at 3T for the magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis spinal magnetic resonance imaging protocol consensus guidelines. At 3T sagittal proton density-weighted fast spin echo and short tau inversion recovery sequences allowed improved detection of cervical spinal cord multiple sclerosis lesions, compared to T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional double inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging. Utilising T2-weighted fast spin echo alone at 3T is insufficient for lesion detection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis consensus guidelines currently mandate three sagittal non-contrast enhanced sequences of T2-weighted fast spin echo, proton density-weighted fast spin echo and short tau inversion recovery; however, these particular three sequences have not previously been compared at 3T. This study compared T2-weighted fast spin echo, proton density-weighted fast spin echo, short tau inversion recovery as well as the double inversion recovery sequence for the sagittal detection of multiple sclerosis lesions in the cervical spinal cord at 3T.
METHODS
METHODS
Nineteen multiple sclerosis patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging with 3T sagittal T2-weighted fast spin echo, proton density-weighted fast spin echo, short tau inversion recovery and double inversion recovery between November 2012 and April 2013. Two neuroradiologists independently reviewed the images, and the number of lesions detected on each sequence was recorded. Lesion conspicuity was quantitatively assessed with the lesion-to-cord-contrast ratio and lesion contrast-to-noise ratio. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Proton density-weighted fast spin echo and short tau inversion recovery detected 32% more lesions compared to T2-weighted fast spin echo, and 37% more lesions compared to double inversion recovery. The lesion-to-cord-contrast ratio was highest in short tau inversion recovery, while the lesion contrast-to-noise ratio was highest for proton density-weighted fast spin echo.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides the necessary evidentiary support at 3T for the magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis spinal magnetic resonance imaging protocol consensus guidelines. At 3T sagittal proton density-weighted fast spin echo and short tau inversion recovery sequences allowed improved detection of cervical spinal cord multiple sclerosis lesions, compared to T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional double inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging. Utilising T2-weighted fast spin echo alone at 3T is insufficient for lesion detection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34014786
doi: 10.1177/19714009211017787
pmc: PMC8649197
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
600-606Références
Radiol Clin North Am. 1988 Jul;26(4):737-53
pubmed: 3289073
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996 May-Jun;20(3):434-8
pubmed: 8626907
Radiology. 1988 Sep;168(3):827-36
pubmed: 3406412
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Mar;37(3):394-401
pubmed: 26564433
Neurology. 1993 Dec;43(12):2632-7
pubmed: 8255468
Nat Rev Neurol. 2015 Aug;11(8):471-82
pubmed: 26149978
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Oct;28(9):1645-9
pubmed: 17885241
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Mar;26(3):572-7
pubmed: 15760868
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997 Jun-Jul;18(6):1041-8
pubmed: 9194431
Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):254-60
pubmed: 15987979
Radiology. 1988 Feb;166(2):485-8
pubmed: 3336725
Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;16(2):127-35
pubmed: 9508269
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Jan;28(1):54-9
pubmed: 17213424
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Oct;30(4):737-42
pubmed: 19787716
Brain. 1998 Jan;121 ( Pt 1):3-24
pubmed: 9549485
Mt Sinai J Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;78(2):258-67
pubmed: 21425269
Neurology. 1999 Aug 11;53(3):448-56
pubmed: 10449103
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013 Nov-Dec;34(11):2215-22
pubmed: 23764721
N Engl J Med. 1998 Jan 29;338(5):278-85
pubmed: 9445407
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998 Aug;19(7):1251-65
pubmed: 9726464
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Jan;37(1):180-4
pubmed: 26427838
Eur Radiol. 2010 Jul;20(7):1675-83
pubmed: 20094887
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2012 Dec;56(6):594-8
pubmed: 23210577
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Dec;80(3):780-5
pubmed: 21041051
Acta Neurol Scand. 2014 Mar;129(3):198-203
pubmed: 23980614
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Jan;36(1):219-25
pubmed: 25169924
Neuroradiology. 2000 Sep;42(9):669-75
pubmed: 11071441
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 Jan;17(1):194
pubmed: 8770278
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988 Dec;151(6):1219-28
pubmed: 3263776
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 Sep;17(8):1555-65
pubmed: 8883656
Radiology. 2002 Apr;223(1):46-56
pubmed: 11930047
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999 Mar;20(3):361-73
pubmed: 10219397