Proof of concept: Portable ultra-low-field magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of epileptogenic brain pathologies.
Epilepsy
Global Epileptology
Neuroimaging
Sustainability
limited ressources
Journal
Epilepsia
ISSN: 1528-1167
Titre abrégé: Epilepsia
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2983306R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Oct 2024
29 Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
12
10
2024
received:
19
08
2024
accepted:
14
10
2024
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
High-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a standard in the diagnosis of epilepsy. However, high costs and technical barriers have limited adoption in low- and middle-income countries. Even in high-income nations, many individuals with epilepsy face delays in undergoing MRI. Recent advancements in ultra-low-field (ULF) MRI technology, particularly the development of portable scanners, offer a promising solution to the limited accessibility of MRI. In this study, we present and evaluate the imaging capability of ULF MRI in detecting structural abnormalities typically associated with epilepsy and compare it to high-field MRI at 3 T. Data collection was conducted within 3 consecutive weeks at the University Hospital Bonn. Inclusion criteria were a minimum age of 18 years, diagnosed epilepsy, and clinical high-field MRI with abnormalities. We used a .064 T Swoop portable MR Imaging System. Both high-field MRI and ULF MRI scans were evaluated independently by two experienced neuroradiologists as part of their clinical routine, comparing pathology detection and diagnosis completeness. Twenty-three individuals with epilepsy were recruited. One subject presented with a dual pathology. Across the entire cohort, in 17 of 24 (71%) pathologies, an anomaly colocalizing with the actual lesion was observed on ULF MRI. For 11 of 24 (46%) pathologies, the full diagnosis could be made based on ULF MRI. Tumors and posttraumatic lesions could be diagnosed best on ULF MRI, whereas cortical dysplasia and other focal pathologies were the least well diagnosed. This single-center series of individuals with epilepsy demonstrates the feasibility and utility of ULF MRI for the field of epileptology. Its integration into epilepsy care offers transformative potential, particularly in resource-limited settings. Further research is needed to position ULF MRI within imaging modalities in the diagnosis of epilepsy.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Neuro-aCSis Bonn Neuroscience Clinician Scientist Program
ID : 2024-12-07
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.
Références
Bianchin MM, Wichert‐Ana L, Velasco TR, Martins APP, Sakamoto AC. Imaging epilepsy with SISCOM. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011;7:240.
Cendes F, Theodore WH, Brinkmann BH, Sulc V, Cascino GD. Neuroimaging of epilepsy. Neuroimaging Part II. Elsevier; 2016. p. 985–1014 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐444‐53486‐6.00051‐X
Ladd ME, Quick HH, Speck O, Bock M, Doerfler A, Forsting M, et al. Germany's journey toward 14 tesla human magnetic resonance. MAGMA. 2023;36(2):191–210. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37029886/
Rüber T, David B, Elger CE. MRI in epilepsy: clinical standard and evolution. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(2):1–231.
Winston GP, Micallef C, Kendell BE, Bartlett PA, Williams EJ, Burdett JL, et al. The value of repeat neuroimaging for epilepsy at a tertiary referral centre: 16 years of experience. Epilepsy Res. 2013;105(3):349–355.
Knake S, Triantafyllou C, Wald LL, Wiggins G, Kirk GP, Larsson PG, et al. 3T phased array MRI improves the presurgical evaluation in focal epilepsies: a prospective study. Neurology. 2005;65(7):1026–1031.
Opheim G, Van Der Kolk A, Bloch KM, Colon AJ, Davis KA, Henry TR, et al. 7T epilepsy task force consensus recommendations on the use of 7T MRI in clinical practice. Neurology. 2021;96(7):327–341. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33361257/
Wang I, Oh S, Blümcke I, Coras R, Krishnan B, Kim S, et al. Value of 7T MRI and post‐processing in patients with nonlesional 3T MRI undergoing epilepsy presurgical evaluation. Epilepsia. 2020;61(11):2509–2520. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32949471/
Geethanath S, Vaughan JT. Accessible magnetic resonance imaging: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(7):e65–e77. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30637891/
Magnetic resonance imaging units (per million population), total density. 2024 [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator‐details/GHO/total‐density‐per‐million‐population‐magnetic‐resonance‐imaging
Beghi E, Giussani G, Abd‐Allah F, Abdela J, Abdelalim A, Abraha HN, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of epilepsy, 1990‐2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(4):357–375. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30773428/
Murali S, Ding H, Adedeji F, Qin C, Obungoloch J, Asllani I, et al. Bringing MRI to low‐ and middle‐income countries: directions, challenges and potential solutions. NMR Biomed. 2024;37(7):e4992 [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37401341/
Wang I, Bernasconi A, Bernhardt B, Blumenfeld H, Cendes F, Chinvarun Y, et al. MRI essentials in epileptology: a review from the ILAE imaging taskforce. Epileptic Disord. 2020;22(4):421–437. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1684/epd.2020.1174
Bernasconi A, Cendes F, Theodore WH, Gill RS, Koepp MJ, Hogan RE, et al. Recommendations for the use of structural magnetic resonance imaging in the care of patients with epilepsy: a consensus report from the international league against epilepsy neuroimaging task force. Epilepsia. 2019;60(6):1054–1068. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31135062/
Arnold TC, Freeman CW, Litt B, Stein JM. Low‐field MRI: clinical promise and challenges. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;57(1):25–44. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36120962/
Parasuram NR, Crawford AL, Mazurek MH, et al. Future of Neurology & Technology: neuroimaging made accessible using low‐field, portable MRI. Neurology. 2023;100(22):1067–1071. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36720639/
Prabhat AM, Crawford AL, Mazurek MH, et al. Methodology for low‐field, portable magnetic resonance neuroimaging at the bedside. Front Neurol. 2021;12:760321 [cited 2024]; Available from: www.frontiersin.org
Shen FX, Wolf SM, Bhavnani S, Deoni S, Elison JT, Fair D, et al. Emerging ethical issues raised by highly portable MRI research in remote and resource‐limited international settings. NeuroImage. 2021 [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34062266/;238:118210.
Shellock FG, Rosen MS, Webb A, et al. Managing patients with unlabeled passive implants on MR systems operating below 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2024;59(5):1514–1522. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37767980/
Altaf A, Baqai MWS, Urooj F, Alam MS, Aziz HF, Mubarak F, et al. Utilization of an ultra‐low‐field, portable magnetic resonance imaging for brain tumor assessment in lower middle‐income countries. Surg Neurol Int. 2023;14:260 [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37560587/
Deoni SCL, Medeiros P, Deoni AT, Burton P, Beauchemin J, D'Sa V, et al. Development of a mobile low‐field MRI scanner. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5690 [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35383255/
Sheth KN, Mazurek MH, Yuen MM, Cahn BA, Shah JT, Ward A, et al. Assessment of brain injury using portable, low‐field magnetic resonance imaging at the bedside of critically ill patients. JAMA Neurol. 2020;78(1):41–47. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32897296/
Cho SM, Wilcox C, Keller S, Acton M, Rando H, Etchill E, et al. Assessing the SAfety and FEasibility of bedside portable low‐field brain magnetic resonance imaging in patients on ECMO (SAFE‐MRI ECMO study): study protocol and first case series experience. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):119 [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35501837/
Sorby‐Adams A, Guo J, de Havenon A, et al. Diffusion‐weighted imaging fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery mismatch on portable, low‐field magnetic resonance imaging among acute stroke patients. Ann Neurol. 2024;96(2):321–331. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38738750/.
Zhang Y, Brady M, Smith S. Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation‐maximization algorithm. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001;20(1):45–57.
Duncan JS, Winston GP, Koepp MJ, Ourselin S. Brain imaging in the assessment for epilepsy surgery. The Lancet Neurology. 2016;15:420–433.
Sidhu MK, Duncan JS, Sander JW. Neuroimaging in epilepsy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(4):371–378. Available from: http://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00019052‐900000000‐99118
Hakami T, McIntosh A, Todaro M, et al. MRI‐identified pathology in adults with new‐onset seizures. Neurology. 2013;81(10):920–927.
Donnay C, Okar SV, Tsagkas C, Gaitán MI, Poorman M, Reich DS, et al. Super resolution using sparse sampling at portable ultra‐low field MR. Front Neurol. 2024;15:1330203.
Cooper R, Hayes RA, Corcoran M, Sheth KN, Arnold TC, Stein JM, et al. Bridging the gap: improving correspondence between low‐field and high‐field magnetic resonance images in young people. Front Neurol. 2024 [cited 2024];15:1339223.
Iglesias JE, Schleicher R, Laguna S, Billot B, Schaefer P, McKaig B, et al. Quantitative brain morphometry of portable low‐field‐strength MRI using super‐resolution machine learning. Radiology. 2023;306(3):e220522.
Billot B, Magdamo C, Cheng Y, Arnold SE, Das S, Iglesias JE. Robust machine learning segmentation for large‐scale analysis of heterogeneous clinical brain MRI datasets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2023;120(9):e2216399120.
Arnold TC, Tu D, Okar SV, Nair G, By S, Kawatra KD, et al. Sensitivity of portable low‐field magnetic resonance imaging for multiple sclerosis lesions. Neuroimage Clin. 2022;35:103101.
Váša F, Bennallick C, Bourke NJ, Padormo F, Baljer L, Briski U, et al. Ultra‐low‐field brain MRI morphometry: test‐retest reliability and correspondence to high‐field MRI. bioRxiv. 2024; [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.08.14.607942v1
Campbell‐Washburn AE, Keenan KE, Hu P, Mugler JP 3rd, Nayak KS, Webb AG, et al. Low‐field MRI: a report on the 2022 ISMRM workshop. Magn Reson Med. 2023;90(4):1682–1694. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37345725/
Sisodiya SM, Fowler HJ, Lake I, Nanji RO, Gawel K, Esguerra CV, et al. Climate change and epilepsy: time to take action. Epilepsia Open. 2019;4(4):524–536. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/epi4.12359
Altaf A, Shakir M, Malik MJA, Arif A, Islam O, Mubarak F, et al. Intraoperative use of low‐field magnetic resonance imaging for brain tumors: a systematic review. Surg Neurol Int. 2023;14:357 [cited 2024]; Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC10629339/.
Altaf A, Baqai MWS, Urooj F, Alam MS, Aziz HF, Mubarak F, et al. Intraoperative use of ultra‐low‐field, portable magnetic resonance imaging—first report. Surg Neurol Int. 2023;14:212 [cited 2024]; Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC10316138/.
Kimberly WT, Sorby‐Adams AJ, Webb AG, Wu EX, Beekman R, Bowry R, et al. Brain imaging with portable low‐field MRI. Nat Rev Bioeng. 2023;1(9):617–630. [cited 2024]; Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222‐023‐00086‐w