4.4 Article

Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spinal cord in multiple sclerosis at 7T

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 320-328

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458515591070

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; multiple sclerosis; spinal cord 7T

Funding

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [KL2 TR000446] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [K99 EB016689, L30 EB007916, K01EB009120, K01 EB009120, R00 EB016689, K25EB013659, K99EB016689, K25 EB013659] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [U54 HD083211] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [R21 NS081437, R21NS081437] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The clinical course of multiple sclerosis (MS) is mainly attributable to cervical and upper thoracic spinal cord dysfunction. High-resolution, 7T anatomical imaging of the cervical spinal cord is presented. Image contrast between gray/white matter and lesions surpasses conventional, clinical T-1- and T-2-weighted sequences at lower field strengths. Objective: To study the spinal cord of healthy controls and patients with MS using magnetic resonance imaging at 7T. Methods: Axial (C2-C5) T-1- and T-2*-weighted and sagittal T-2*-/spin-density-weighted images were acquired at 7T in 13 healthy volunteers (age 22-40 years), and 15 clinically diagnosed MS patients (age 19-53 years, Extended Disability Status Scale, (EDSS) 0-3) in addition to clinical 3T scans. In healthy volunteers, a high-resolution multi-echo gradient echo scan was obtained over the same geometry at 3T. Evaluation included signal and contrast to noise ratios and lesion counts for healthy and patient volunteers, respectively. Results/conclusion: High-resolution images at 7T exceeded resolutions reported at lower field strengths. Gray and white matter were sharply demarcated and MS lesions were more readily visualized at 7T compared to clinical acquisitions, with lesions apparent at both fields. Nerve roots were clearly visualized. White matter lesion counts averaged 4.7 vs 3.1 (52% increase) per patient at 7T vs 3T, respectively (p=0.05).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available