Double inversion recovery brain imaging at 3T: diagnostic value in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To prospectively determine the sensitivity in the detection of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions by using double inversion recovery (DIR), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (T2 TSE) MR imaging at 3T. METHODS Seventeen patients presenting with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) suggestive of MS, 9 patients with definite MS, and 6 healthy control subjects were included. Imaging was performed on a 3T MR system using DIR, FLAIR, and T2 TSE sequences. Lesions were counted and classified according to 5 anatomic regions: infratentorial, periventricular, deep white matter, juxtacortical, and mixed white matter-gray matter. The sensitivity at DIR was compared with the corresponding sensitivity at FLAIR and T2 TSE sequence. The contrast between lesions and normal-appearing gray matter, normal-appearing white matter, and CSF was determined for all sequences. RESULTS Because of higher lesion-white matter contrast, the DIR showed a higher number of lesions compared with the FLAIR (7% gain, P = 0.04) and the T2 TSE (15% gain, P = 0.01). The higher sensitivity was also significant for the infratentorial region compared with the FLAIR (56% gain, P = 0.02) and the T2 TSE (44% gain, P = 0.02). Compared with the FLAIR, no significant changes of the lesion load measurements were observed in the supratentorial brain: slightly higher numbers of periventricular and mixed gray matter-white matter lesions on the DIR were counterbalanced by a slightly reduced sensitivity regarding juxtacortical lesions. CONCLUSION DIR brain imaging at 3T provides the highest sensitivity in the detection of MS lesions especially in the infratentorial region.

[1]  C P Langlotz,et al.  MR identification of white matter abnormalities in multiple sclerosis: a comparison between 1.5 T and 4 T. , 1998, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[2]  M Cercignani,et al.  Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis , 2001, Neurology.

[3]  M Filippi,et al.  Comparison of MR pulse sequences in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. , 1997, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[4]  R. Rudick,et al.  Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  A A Bankier,et al.  Double inversion recovery imaging of the brain: initial experience and comparison with fluid attenuated inversion recovery imaging. , 1998, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[6]  Frederik Barkhof,et al.  Cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis: combined postmortem MR imaging and histopathology. , 2005, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[7]  M. L. Lauzon,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3.0 Tesla: Challenges and Advantages in Clinical Neurological Imaging , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[8]  G. Comi,et al.  Comparison of MRI criteria at first presentation to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. , 1997, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[9]  B D Trapp,et al.  Intracortical multiple sclerosis lesions are not associated with increased lymphocyte infiltration , 2003, Multiple sclerosis.

[10]  Fritz Schick,et al.  Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential , 2005, European Radiology.

[11]  H. Schild,et al.  Imaging of inflammatory lesions at 3.0 Tesla in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a comparison of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery with T2 turbo spin-echo , 2006, European Radiology.

[12]  K. Albertsson-Wikland,et al.  Pubertal Growth Assessment , 2003, Hormone Research in Paediatrics.

[13]  Seth E. Bouvier,et al.  Comparison of Multiple Sclerosis Lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[14]  F. Barkhof,et al.  Validation of diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis and response to interferon β1a , 2003, Annals of neurology.

[15]  C. Polman,et al.  Infratentorial lesions predict long-term disability in patients with initial findings suggestive of multiple sclerosis. , 2004, Archives of neurology.

[16]  J K Udupa,et al.  Magnetization transfer ratio histogram analysis of gray matter in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. , 2001, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[17]  J Sastre-Garriga,et al.  New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis , 2003, Neurology.

[18]  Frederik Barkhof,et al.  Intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis: improved detection with 3D double inversion-recovery MR imaging. , 2005, Radiology.

[19]  R. Bakshi,et al.  Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging detects cortical and juxtacortical multiple sclerosis lesions. , 2001, Archives of neurology.

[20]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Does high-field MR imaging have an influence on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes according to current diagnostic mr imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis? , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[21]  F. Barkhof,et al.  Cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[22]  W. Heiss,et al.  New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis , 2002, Annals of neurology.

[23]  J. Babb,et al.  Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: metabolic abnormality in nonenhancing lesions and normal-appearing white matter at MR imaging: initial experience. , 2005, Radiology.

[24]  A J Thompson,et al.  Multiple sclerosis lesion detection in the brain: A comparison of fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and conventional T2-weighted dual spin echo , 1997, Neurology.

[25]  P. Kramer,et al.  MRI characteristics of the MLF in MS patients with chronic internuclear ophthalmoparesis.11Neurology 2001;57:762–768. , 2001 .

[26]  J A Frank,et al.  Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[27]  T W Redpath,et al.  Technical note: use of a double inversion recovery pulse sequence to image selectively grey or white brain matter. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.

[28]  P M Matthews,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging within diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis , 2004, Annals of neurology.

[29]  S. Reingold,et al.  Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria” , 2005, Annals of neurology.

[30]  3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences , 2005, European Radiology.

[31]  D. Arnold,et al.  Magnetic resonance techniques for the in vivo assessment of multiple sclerosis pathology: Consensus report of the white matter study group , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[32]  David H. Miller,et al.  Application of the new McDonald criteria to patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis , 2002, Annals of neurology.

[33]  P A Narayana,et al.  Implementation and evaluation of a new pulse sequence for rapid acquisition of double inversion recovery images for simultaneous suppression of white matter and CSF , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[34]  À. Rovira,et al.  Isolated demyelinating syndromes: comparison of different MR imaging criteria to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. , 2000, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.