Resolution-Dependent Estimates of Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Loads

ABSTRACT: Background: Changes in brain lesion loads assessed with magnetic resonance imaging obtained at 1.5 Telsa (T) are used as a measure of disease evolution in natural history studies and treatment trials of multiple sclerosis. Methods: A comparison was made between the total lesion volume and individual lesions observed on 1.5 T images and on high-resolution 4 T images. Lesions were quantified using a computer-assisted segmentation tool. Results: There was a 46% increase in the total number of lesions detected with 4 T versus 1.5 T imaging (p<0.005). The 4 T also showed a 60% increase in total lesion volume when compared with the 1.5 T (p<0.005). In several instances, the 1.5 T scans showed individual lesions that coalesced into larger areas of abnormality in the 4 T scans. The relationship between individual lesion volumes was linear (slope 1.231) showing that the lesion volume observed at 4 T increased with the size of the lesion detected at 1.5 T. The 4 T voxels were less than one quarter the size of those used at 1.5 T and there were no consistent differences between their signal-to-noise ratios. Conclusions: The increase in signal strength that accompanied the increase in field strength compensated for the loss in signal amplitude produced by the use of smaller voxels. This enabled the acquisition of images with improved resolution, resulting in increased lesion detection at 4 T and larger lesion volumes.

[1]  L. L. Cook,et al.  In vivo 4.0‐T magnetic resonance investigation of spinal cord inflammation, demyelination, and axonal damage in chronic‐progressive experimental allergic encephalomyelitis , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  D. Miller,et al.  Volume measurement of multiple sclerosis lesions with magnetic resonance images , 1992, Neuroradiology.

[3]  Neal Jeffries,et al.  Evolution of T1 black holes in patients with multiple sclerosis imaged monthly for 4 years. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[4]  P. Pretorius,et al.  The role of MRI in the diagnosis of MS. , 2003, Clinical radiology.

[5]  Massimo Filippi,et al.  Guidelines for using quantitative magnetization transfer magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring treatment of multiple sclerosis , 2003, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  Carlo Pozzilli,et al.  A longitudinal study of MR diffusion changes in normal appearing white matter of patients with early multiple sclerosis. , 2002, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[7]  Craig K. Jones,et al.  Normal‐appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis has heterogeneous, diffusely prolonged T2 , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[8]  I. V. Allen,et al.  Pathological abnormalities in the normal-appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis , 2001, Neurological Sciences.

[9]  B. Rutt,et al.  In vivo measurements of multi-component T2 relaxation behaviour in guinea pig brain. , 1999, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[10]  M Rovaris,et al.  Lesion load quantification on fast-FLAIR, rapid acquisition relaxation-enhanced, and gradient spin echo brain MRI scans from multiple sclerosis patients. , 1999, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[11]  R M Harrison,et al.  Partial volume effects in MRI studies of multiple sclerosis. , 1999, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[12]  M. Rovaris,et al.  A comparison of the sensitivity of monthly unenhanced and enhanced MRI techniques in detecting new multiple sclerosis lesions , 1999, Journal of Neurology.

[13]  G. Barker,et al.  The effect of section thickness on MR lesion detection and quantification in multiple sclerosis. , 1998, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[14]  H. Lassmann,et al.  Histopathological characterization of magnetic resonance imaging-detectable brain white matter lesions in a primate model of multiple sclerosis: a correlative study in the experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). , 1998, The American journal of pathology.

[15]  J A Frank,et al.  Guidelines for using quantitative measures of brain magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis , 1998, Annals of neurology.

[16]  H. Weiner A 21 Point Unifying Hypothesis on the Etiology and Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis , 1998, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

[17]  G. Comi,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver variability in schemes for estimating volume of brain lesions on MR images in multiple sclerosis. , 1998, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[18]  G. Comi,et al.  Increased spatial resolution using a three-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo MR sequence results in greater hypointense lesion volumes in multiple sclerosis. , 1998, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[19]  J Grimaud,et al.  Effect of training and different measurement strategies on the reproducibility of brain MRI lesion load measurements in multiple sclerosis , 1998, Neurology.

[20]  A J Thompson,et al.  Survey of the distribution of lesion size in multiple sclerosis: implication for the measurement of total lesion load , 1997, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[21]  F. Barkhof,et al.  Interscanner variation in brain MRI lesion load measurements in MS: Implications for clinical trials , 1997, Neurology.

[22]  M Filippi,et al.  The effect of imprecise repositioning on lesion volume measurements in patients with multiple sclerosis , 1997, Neurology.

[23]  A comparison of conventional and fast spin-echo sequences for the measurement of lesion load in multiple sclerosis using a semi-automated contour technique , 1997, Neuroradiology.

[24]  M. Horsfield,et al.  A high‐resolution three‐dimensional T1‐weighted gradient echo sequence improves the detection of disease activity in multiple sclerosis , 1996, Annals of neurology.

[25]  D. Miller,et al.  Lesion volume measurement in multiple sclerosis: How important is accurate repositioning? , 1996, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[26]  C Becker,et al.  Quantitative assessment of MRI lesion load in multiple sclerosis. A comparison of conventional spin-echo with fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[27]  F. Barkhof,et al.  Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance techniques in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis , 1996, Annals of neurology.

[28]  G. Barker,et al.  Quantification of MRI lesion load in multiple sclerosis: a comparison of three computer-assisted techniques. , 1996, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[29]  G. Comi,et al.  Resolution‐dependent estimates of lesion volumes in magnetic resonance imaging studies of the brain in multiple sclerosis , 1995, Annals of neurology.

[30]  P. S. Albert,et al.  Changes in the amount of diseased white matter over time in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis , 1995, Neurology.

[31]  K. Uğurbil,et al.  High contrast and fast three‐dimensional magnetic resonance imaging at high fields , 1995, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[32]  A J Thompson,et al.  Correlations between changes in disability and T2‐weighted brain MRI activity in multiple sclerosis , 1995, Neurology.

[33]  A. Fenster,et al.  Computer‐assisted identification and quantification of multiple sclerosis lesions in MR imaging volumes in the brain , 1994, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[34]  A. Thompson,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis: concerted action guidelines. , 1991, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[35]  C. Jack,et al.  Field Strength in Neuro‐MR Imaging: A Comparison of 0.5 T and 1.5 T , 1990, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[36]  M. Bernardino,et al.  Focal hepatic lesions: comparative MR imaging at 0.5 and 1.5 T. , 1990, Radiology.

[37]  W. L. Benedict,et al.  Multiple Sclerosis , 2007, Journal - Michigan State Medical Society.