4.7 Article

In vivo quantitative evaluation of brain tissue damage in multiple sclerosis using gradient echo plural contrast imaging technique

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 1089-1097

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.045

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1 RR024992]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conventional MRI based on weighted spin-echo (SE) images aids in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS); however, MRI markers derived from SE sequences provide limited information about lesion severity and correlate poorly with patient disability assessed with clinical tests. In this study, we introduced a novel method [based on quantitative R2* (1/T2*) histograms] for estimating the severity of brain tissue damage in MS lesions. We applied at 1.5 T an advanced, multi-gradient echo MRI technique [gradient echo plural contrast imaging (GEPCI)] to obtain images of the brains of healthy control subjects and subjects with MS. GEPCI is a simple yet robust technique allowing simultaneous acquisition of inherently co-registered quantitative T2* and FLAIR-like maps, along with T1-weighted images within a clinically acceptable time frame. Images obtained with GEPCI appear highly similar to standard scans; hence, they can be used in a reliable and conventional way for a clinical evaluation of the disease. Yet, the main advantage of GEPCI approach is its quantitative nature. Analysis of R2* histograms of white matter revealed a difference in the distribution between healthy subjects and subjects with MS. Based on this difference, we developed a new method for grading the severity of tissue damage [tissue damage score (TDS)] in MS lesions. This method also provides a tissue damage load (TDL) assessing both lesion load and lesion severity, and a mean tissue damage score (MTDS) estimating the average MS lesion damage. We found promising correlations between the results derived from this method and the standard measure of clinical disability. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available