Next Article in Journal
Proton Density Fat Fraction Spine MRI for Differentiation of Erosive Vertebral Endplate Degeneration and Infectious Spondylitis
Next Article in Special Issue
Biomarkers in EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications
Previous Article in Journal
Switching to a Bictegravir Single Tablet Regimen in Elderly People Living with HIV-1: Data Analysis from the BICTEL Cohort
Previous Article in Special Issue
Plethysmography System to Monitor the Jugular Venous Pulse: A Feasibility Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/diagnostics12010077
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods to Assess Multiple Sclerosis Lesions: Implications for Patient Characterization and Clinical Trial Design

by
Ewart Mark Haacke
1,2,3,4,5,*,
Evanthia Bernitsas
3,
Karthik Subramanian
2,
David Utriainen
1,4,
Vinay Kumar Palutla
6,
Kiran Yerramsetty
6,
Prashanth Kumar
6,
Sean K. Sethi
1,2,4,
Yongsheng Chen
3,
Zahid Latif
2,
Pavan Jella
2,
Sara Gharabaghi
5,
Ying Wang
2,5,
Xiaomeng Zhang
7,
Robert A. Comley
7,
John Beaver
7,† and
Yanping Luo
7
1
The MRI Institute for Biomedical Research, Bingham Farms, MI 48025, USA
2
Department of Radiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA
3
Department of Neurology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA
4
SpinTech Inc., Bingham Farms, MI 48025, USA
5
MR Innovations Inc., Bingham Farms, MI 48025, USA
6
MR Medical Imaging Innovations India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad 500081, India
7
AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL 60064, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Former AbbVie employee.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(1), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010077
Submission received: 2 November 2021 / Revised: 20 December 2021 / Accepted: 22 December 2021 / Published: 30 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomarkers of Vascular Diseases 2.0)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive imaging modality for identifying inflammatory and/or demyelinating lesions, which is critical for a clinical diagnosis of MS and evaluating drug responses. There are many unique means of probing brain tissue status, including conventional T1 and T2 weighted imaging (T1WI, T2WI), T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), magnetization transfer, myelin water fraction, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), phase-sensitive inversion recovery and susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), but no study has combined all of these modalities into a single well-controlled investigation. The goals of this study were to: compare different MRI measures for lesion visualization and quantification; evaluate the repeatability of various imaging methods in healthy controls; compare quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) with myelin water fraction; measure short-term longitudinal changes in the white matter of MS patients and map out the tissue properties of the white matter hyperintensities using STAGE (strategically acquired gradient echo imaging). Additionally, the outcomes of this study were anticipated to aid in the choice of an efficient imaging protocol reducing redundancy of information and alleviating patient burden. Of all the sequences used, T2 FLAIR and T2WI showed the most lesions. To differentiate the putative demyelinating lesions from inflammatory lesions, the fusion of SWI and T2 FLAIR was used. Our study suggests that a practical and efficient imaging protocol combining T2 FLAIR, T1WI and STAGE (with SWI and QSM) can be used to rapidly image MS patients to both find lesions and study the demyelinating and inflammatory characteristics of the lesions.
Keywords: multiple sclerosis; chronic white matter lesions; demyelinating/inflammatory lesions; quantitative magnetic resonance imaging multiple sclerosis; chronic white matter lesions; demyelinating/inflammatory lesions; quantitative magnetic resonance imaging

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haacke, E.M.; Bernitsas, E.; Subramanian, K.; Utriainen, D.; Palutla, V.K.; Yerramsetty, K.; Kumar, P.; Sethi, S.K.; Chen, Y.; Latif, Z.; et al. A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods to Assess Multiple Sclerosis Lesions: Implications for Patient Characterization and Clinical Trial Design. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010077

AMA Style

Haacke EM, Bernitsas E, Subramanian K, Utriainen D, Palutla VK, Yerramsetty K, Kumar P, Sethi SK, Chen Y, Latif Z, et al. A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods to Assess Multiple Sclerosis Lesions: Implications for Patient Characterization and Clinical Trial Design. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(1):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010077

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haacke, Ewart Mark, Evanthia Bernitsas, Karthik Subramanian, David Utriainen, Vinay Kumar Palutla, Kiran Yerramsetty, Prashanth Kumar, Sean K. Sethi, Yongsheng Chen, Zahid Latif, and et al. 2022. "A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods to Assess Multiple Sclerosis Lesions: Implications for Patient Characterization and Clinical Trial Design" Diagnostics 12, no. 1: 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010077

APA Style

Haacke, E. M., Bernitsas, E., Subramanian, K., Utriainen, D., Palutla, V. K., Yerramsetty, K., Kumar, P., Sethi, S. K., Chen, Y., Latif, Z., Jella, P., Gharabaghi, S., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Comley, R. A., Beaver, J., & Luo, Y. (2022). A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods to Assess Multiple Sclerosis Lesions: Implications for Patient Characterization and Clinical Trial Design. Diagnostics, 12(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010077

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop