4.3 Article

Selective inversion recovery quantitative magnetization transfer imaging: Toward a 3 T clinical application in multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 457-467

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458519833018

关键词

Biomarkers; demyelination; multiple sclerosis; outcome measurement; T2 lesions

资金

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR000445] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [K25 CA168936] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [K25 EB013659] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS097821] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Assessing the degree of myelin injury in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is challenging due to the lack of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods specific to myelin quantity. By measuring distinct tissue parameters from a two-pool model of the magnetization transfer (MT) effect, quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT) may yield these indices. However, due to long scan times, qMT has not been translated clinically. Objectives: We aim to assess the clinical feasibility of a recently optimized selective inversion recovery (SIR) qMT and to test the hypothesis that SIR-qMT-derived metrics are informative of radiological and clinical disease-related changes in MS. Methods: A total of 18 MS patients and 9 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs) underwent a 3.0 Tesla (3 T) brain MRI, including clinical scans and an optimized SIR-qMT protocol. Four subjects were re-scanned at a 2-week interval to determine inter-scan variability. Results: SIR-qMT measures differed between lesional and non-lesional tissue (p < 0.0001) and between normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) of patients with more advanced disability and normal white matter (WM) of HCs (p < 0.05). SIR-qMT measures were associated with lesion volumes, disease duration, and disability scores (p <= 0.002). Conclusion: SIR-qMT at 3 T is clinically feasible and predicts both radiological and clinical disease severity in MS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据