4.2 Article

Detection of Active Plaques in Multiple Sclerosis using Susceptibility-weighted Imaging: Comparison with Gadolinium-enhanced MR Imaging

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICAL SCIENCES
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 185-192

Publisher

JPN SOC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2463/mrms.10.185

Keywords

contrast enhancement; magnitude image; multiple sclerosis; phase image; susceptibility-weighted imaging

Funding

  1. Strategic Medical Science Research Center, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Susceptibility-weighted (SW) imaging is a magnetic resonance (MR) imaging technique reported effective in visualizing multiple sclerosis (MS) plaques, but its capacity to distinguish active plaques remains unclear. We evaluated active plaque detection by SW compared with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Methods: We prospectively examined 11 patients using a 3-tesla scanner. Two neuroradiologists independently evaluated signal changes of plaques and accompanying low signal rims in 74 plaques on various SW images (magnitude, phase, and minimum intensity projection [minIP]), and on contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted images (T(1)WI). We correlated signal alterations on various SW images and contrast enhancement on T(1)WI using Fisher's exact test and calculated sensitivity and specificity for predicting gadolinium enhancement. Results: Only changes in plaque signal on SW magnitude images correlated significantly with contrast enhancement of the plaques (P = 0.008), and high signal intensity had 0.556 sensitivity and 0.787 specificity for predicting contrast-enhanced plaques. Furthermore, plaques with rims of low signal showed sensitivity of 0.296 and specificity of 0.957. Conclusions: Susceptibility-weighted magnitude, but not phase or minIP, images can predict MS plaques with contrast enhancement with high specificity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available