Assessment of 2D conventional and synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis.
Brain
Magnetic resonance imaging
Multiple sclerosis
Synthetic MRI
Journal
Neuroradiology
ISSN: 1432-1920
Titre abrégé: Neuroradiology
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 1302751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
03
01
2022
accepted:
02
05
2022
pubmed:
19
5
2022
medline:
11
11
2022
entrez:
18
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To qualitatively and quantitatively compare synthetic and conventional MRI sequences acquired on a 1.5-T system for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Prospective study that involved twenty-seven consecutive relapsing-remitting MS patients scanned on a 1.5-T MRI scanner. The MRI protocol included 2D transverse conventional spin-echo sequences: proton density-weighted (PD), T2-weighted, T2-FLAIR, and T1-weighted. Synthetic images were generated using 2D transverse QRAPMASTER and SyMRI software with the same voxel size, repetition, echo, and inversion times as the conventional sequences. Four raters performed a crosstab qualitative analysis that involved evaluating global image quality, contrast, flow artefacts, and confidence in lesion assessment introducing the concepts of predominance, agreement, and disagreement. A quantitative analysis was also performed and included evaluating the number of lesions (periventricular, juxtacortical, brainstem, and cerebellum) and the contrast-to-noise ratio between regions (CSF, white matter, grey matter, lesions). The global image quality assessment showed predominance for better scores for conventional sequences over synthetic sequences, whereas contrast, confidence in lesion assessment, and flow artefacts showed predominance for agreement between sequences. There was predominance for disagreement between all pairs of raters in most of the evaluated qualitative parameters. Synthetic PD and T2-FLAIR images showed higher contrast-to-noise ratios than the corresponding conventional images for most comparison between regions. There were no significant differences in the number of lesions detected for most of the study regions between conventional and synthetic images. Synthetic MRI can be potentially used as an alternative to conventional brain MRI sequences in the assessment of MS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35583667
doi: 10.1007/s00234-022-02973-2
pii: 10.1007/s00234-022-02973-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2315-2322Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Simon JH (2014) MRI outcomes in the diagnosis and disease course of multiple sclerosis. In: Handb Clin Neurol
Sinnecker T, Kuchling J, Dusek P et al (2015) Ultrahigh field MRI in clinical neuroimmunology: a potential contribution to improved diagnostics and personalised disease management. EPMA J. 6
Rovira A, Wattjes MP, Tintoré M et al (2015) Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis - clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol 11:471–482. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106
doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106
pubmed: 26149978
Sastre-Garriga J, Pareto D, Battaglini M et al (2020) MAGNIMS consensus recommendations on the use of brain and spinal cord atrophy measures in clinical practice. Nat Rev Neurol 16:171–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-020-0314-x
doi: 10.1038/s41582-020-0314-x
pubmed: 32094485
pmcid: 7054210
Warntjes JBM, DahlqvistLeinhard O, West J, Lundberg P (2008) Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 60:320–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21635
doi: 10.1002/mrm.21635
pubmed: 18666127
Granberg T, Uppman M, Hashim F et al (2016) Clinical feasibility of synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. Am J Neuroradiol 37:1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4665
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4665
pubmed: 26797137
pmcid: 7963550
Hagiwara A, Hori M, Yokoyama K et al (2017) Synthetic MRI in the detection of multiple sclerosis plaques. Am J Neuroradiol 38:257–263. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5012
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5012
pubmed: 27932506
pmcid: 7963841
Blystad I, Håkansson I, Tisell A, et al (2016) Quantitative MRI for analysis of active multiple sclerosis lesions without gadolinium-based contrast agent. Am J Neuroradiol 37: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4501
Krauss W, Gunnarsson M, Nilsson M, Thunberg P (2018) Conventional and synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a comparative study. Eur Radiol 28:1692–1700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5100-9
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5100-9
pubmed: 29134354
Wattjes MP, Ciccarelli O, Reich DS et al (2021) MAGNIMS–CMSC–NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 4422:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(21)00095-8
doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(21)00095-8
Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F et al (2018) Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 17:162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
pubmed: 29275977
Hinkle, Wiersma, Jurs (2003) Rule of thumb for interpreting the size of a correlation coefficient matrix showing correlation coefficients appropriate for scales of measurement for variable X and variable Y. Appl Stat Behav Sci 1
Ryu KH, Baek HJ, Moon J Il, et al (2020) Initial clinical experience of synthetic MRI as a routine neuroimaging protocol in daily practice: a single-center study. J Neuroradiol 47: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2019.03.002
Tanenbaum LN, Tsiouris AJ, Johnson AN et al (2017) Synthetic MRI for clinical neuroimaging: results of the magnetic resonance image compilation (MAGiC) prospective, multicenter, multireader trial. Am J Neuroradiol 38:1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5227
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5227
pubmed: 28450439
pmcid: 7960099
Di Giuliano F, Minosse S, Picchi E et al (2020) Comparison between synthetic and conventional magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis and controls. Magn Reson Mater Physics Biol Med 33:549–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-019-00804-9
doi: 10.1007/s10334-019-00804-9
Betts AM, Leach JL, Jones BV et al (2016) Brain imaging with synthetic MR in children: clinical quality assessment. Neuroradiology 58:1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-016-1723-9
doi: 10.1007/s00234-016-1723-9
pubmed: 27438803
Blystad I, Warntjes JBM, Smedby O et al (2012) Synthetic MRI of the brain in a clinical setting. Acta radiol 53:1158–1163. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.120195
doi: 10.1258/ar.2012.120195
pubmed: 23024181
Hagens MHJ, Burggraaff J, Kilsdonk ID, et al (2019) Impact of 3 Tesla MRI on interobserver agreement in clinically isolated syndrome: a MAGNIMS multicentre study. Mult Scler J 25: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517751647
Hagens MHJ, Burggraaff J, Kilsdonk ID, et al (2018) Three-Tesla MRI does not improve the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a multicenter study. Neurology 91: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005825