4.7 Article

The use of multiparametric quantitative magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating visually assigned lesion groups in patients with multiple sclerosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 265, 期 1, 页码 127-133

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-017-8683-9

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; T1 relaxometry; Magnetization transfer imaging; DTI; Inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In multiple sclerosis (MS), inflammatory lesions present a broad spectrum of histopathologic processes. For a better discrimination, lesions are visually defined into different lesion groups according to their appearance on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study was to investigate the properties of different MS lesion groups using multiparametric quantitative MRI. 35 patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS received 3 Tesla MRI including magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echo, diffusion tensor imaging and magnetization transfer imaging. Lesion segmentation was performed for T2 lesions, black holes and contrast-enhancing lesions. A subtraction mask was created including only T2 lesions that did not correspond to a black hole or contrast-enhancing lesion. T1 relaxation time (T1-RT), magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), mean diffusivity (MD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) were determined for every lesion and in normal-appearing white matter. Only MD differed significantly between all lesion groups and NAWM (p < 0.05), while FA differed between all lesion groups but not NAWM. T1-RT and MTR were not useful imaging biomarkers to distinguish between lesion groups. A lack of sensitivity and specificity and unproportional alterations of quantitative MRI measures, due to heterogenous histopathologic processes within lesions, may be a possible explanation for missing discrimination. Thus, not only interpretation of visually defined MS lesion but also interpretation of quantitative MRI measures remains challenging and should be conducted carefully.

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

4.7
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