4.5 Article

Optimisation of T2*-weighted MRI for the detection of small veins in multiple sclerosis at 3 T and 7 T

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 5, Pages 719-727

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.09.023

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; MRI; Magnetic susceptibility; Small veins; Diagnosis; 7 T

Funding

  1. UK Multiple Sclerosis Society [919]
  2. Medical Research Council [G0700584]
  3. Medical Research Council [G0901321, G0700584] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0700584, G0901321] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

T-2*-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 7 T has recently been shown to allow differentiation between white-matter multiple sclerosis lesions and asymptomatic white-matter lesions, by the presence or absence of a detectable central blood vessel. The aim of the present work is to improve the technique by increasing the sensitivity to veins at both 3 T and 7 T, and to assess the benefit of ultra-high-field imaging. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements and simulations are used to compare the sensitivity of magnitude T-2*-weighted and susceptibility-weighted images for the detection of small veins (<1 pixel in diameter), both with and without the use of gadolinium. The simulations are used to predict the optimal scanning parameters in order to increase the sensitivity to these veins at both field strengths, and to reduce the inherent dependence on vessel orientation. The sensitivities of the sequences at both field strengths are compared, theoretically and experimentally, in order to quantify the benefit of imaging at ultra-high-field. Subjects with multiple sclerosis (MS) are scanned at both field strengths, using the optimised sequence parameters, as well as those used in previously published work, and the optimisation is shown to improve the detection of veins within lesions. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available