Higher Sensitivity in the Detection of Inflammatory Brain Lesions in Patients with Clinically Isolated Syndromes Suggestive of Multiple Sclerosis Using High Field MRI: an Intraindividual Comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2006 May 2

PMID 16649033

Citations 39

Authors

Mike P Wattjes

Gotz G Lutterbey

Michael Harzheim

Jurgen Gieseke

Frank Traber

Luisa Klotz

Thomas Klockgether

Hans H Schild

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivities in the detection of inflammatory lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis at 3.0 T and 1.5 T. MR imaging of 40 patients at both field strengths was performed in separate sessions including contiguous axial slices of T2 turbo spin-echo (T2 TSE), fluid-attenuated-inversion-recovery (FLAIR) and pre- and postcontrast T1 spin-echo (T1 SE). Inflammatory lesions > 3 mm in size were counted and categorized according to their anatomic location. Lesion conspicuity was assessed on a five-point scale. At 3.0 T, 13% more white matter lesions could be identified on the FLAIR sequence and on the T2 TSE sequence. Compared to 1.5 T 7.5% more contrast-enhancing lesions were detected at 3.0 T. The higher detection rate at 3.0 T was significant for the infratentorial (p = 0.02) and juxtacortical (p < 0.01) region on the FLAIR as well as for the infratentorial (p = 0.03), juxtacortical (p = 0.02) and periventricular (p = 0.03) region on the T2 TSE sequence. The lesion conspicuity was significantly better at 3.0 T for FLAIR and T2 TSE sequences (p<0.01; p=0.01). In conclusion, high-field MRI at 3.0 T provides a significantly higher detection rate of inflammatory brain lesions especially in the infratentorial, juxtacortical and periventricular anatomic region.

Citing Articles

Kim J, Kim E, Park M, Bae Y, Suh C, You S J Korean Soc Radiol. 2025; 86(1):34-44.

PMID: 39958493 PMC: 11822282. DOI: 10.3348/jksr.2024.0147.

Exploring Spinal Cord Changes in Multiple Sclerosis Patients Using MRI.

Alrehaili A, Faizo N, Alsulimani B, Alsulimani R, Aldwaila D, Alqarni N NeuroSci. 2024; 5(1):87-97.

PMID: 39483810 PMC: 11523708. DOI: 10.3390/neurosci5010006.

Regional Variability in MRI Scans with Different Magnetic Field Strengths in Japan: Implications for Healthcare Preparedness for Alzheimer's Disease Treatment.

Sato K, Niimi Y, Ihara R, Iwata A, Iwatsubo T Biomedicines. 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39200334 PMC: 11351322. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12081870.

Jeong S, Suh C, Kim S, Lemere C, Lim J, Lee J Korean J Radiol. 2024; 25(8):726-741.

PMID: 39109501 PMC: 11306001. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2024.0105.

The presence of pachymeningeal hyperintensity on non-contrast flair imaging in patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension.

OCearbhaill R, Haughey A, Willinsky R, Farb R, Nicholson P Neuroradiology. 2023; 65(5):893-898.

PMID: 36781427 DOI: 10.1007/s00234-023-03128-7.

References

Gutberlet M, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, Spors B, Grothoff M, Denecke T . Influence of high magnetic field strengths and parallel acquisition strategies on image quality in cardiac 2D CINE magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15(8):1586-97. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-2768-z. View

Schima W, Wimberger D, Schneider B, STIGLBAUER R, Asenbaum S, Imhof H . [The importance of magnetic field strength in the MR diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a comparison of 0.5 and 1.5 T]. Rofo. 1993; 158(4):368-71. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1032665. View

Schick F . Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15(5):946-59. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-2678-0. View

Lee D, Vellet A, Eliasziw M, Vidito L, Ebers G, Rice G . MR imaging field strength: prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Radiology. 1995; 194(1):257-62. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.194.1.7997564. View

Minneboo A, Barkhof F, Polman C, Uitdehaag B, Knol D, Castelijns J . Infratentorial lesions predict long-term disability in patients with initial findings suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 2004; 61(2):217-21. DOI: 10.1001/archneur.61.2.217. View

Keiper M, Grossman R, Hirsch J, Bolinger L, Ott I, Mannon L . MR identification of white matter abnormalities in multiple sclerosis: a comparison between 1.5 T and 4 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998; 19(8):1489-93. PMC: 8338677. View

Frohman E, Goodin D, Calabresi P, Corboy J, Coyle P, Filippi M . The utility of MRI in suspected MS: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2003; 61(5):602-11. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000082654.99838.ef. View

Schild H . [Clinical highfield MR]. Rofo. 2005; 177(5):621-31. DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-858048. View

Krautmacher C, Willinek W, Tschampa H, Born M, Traber F, Gieseke J . Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T--Initial Experience. Radiology. 2005; 237(3):1014-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2373041672. View

10.

Filippi M, Yousry T, Baratti C, Horsfield M, Mammi S, Becker C . Quantitative assessment of MRI lesion load in multiple sclerosis. A comparison of conventional spin-echo with fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery. Brain. 1996; 119 ( Pt 4):1349-55. DOI: 10.1093/brain/119.4.1349. View

11.

Gizewski E, Maderwald S, Wanke I, Goehde S, Forsting M, Ladd M . Comparison of volume, four- and eight-channel head coils using standard and parallel imaging. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15(8):1555-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-2730-0. View

12.

Lutterbey G, Gieseke J, von Falkenhausen M, Morakkabati N, Schild H . Lung MRI at 3.0 T: a comparison of helical CT and high-field MRI in the detection of diffuse lung disease. Eur Radiol. 2004; 15(2):324-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2548-1. View

13.

Sicotte N, Voskuhl R, Bouvier S, Klutch R, Cohen M, Mazziotta J . Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2003; 38(7):423-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.RLI.0000065426.07178.f1. View

14.

Ormerod I, Miller D, McDonald W, du Boulay E, Rudge P, Kendall B . The role of NMR imaging in the assessment of multiple sclerosis and isolated neurological lesions. A quantitative study. Brain. 1987; 110 ( Pt 6):1579-616. DOI: 10.1093/brain/110.6.1579. View

15.

Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, Lutterbey G, von Falkenhausen M, Traeber F . 3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15(4):639-44. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2589-5. View

16.

Polman C, Reingold S, Edan G, Filippi M, Hartung H, Kappos L . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the "McDonald Criteria". Ann Neurol. 2005; 58(6):840-6. DOI: 10.1002/ana.20703. View

17.

Kurtzke J . Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983; 33(11):1444-52. DOI: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. View

18.

McDonald W, Compston A, Edan G, Goodkin D, Hartung H, Lublin F . Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2001; 50(1):121-7. DOI: 10.1002/ana.1032. View

19.

Filippi M, van Waesberghe J, Horsfield M, Bressi S, Gasperini C, Yousry T . Interscanner variation in brain MRI lesion load measurements in MS: implications for clinical trials. Neurology. 1997; 49(2):371-7. DOI: 10.1212/wnl.49.2.371. View

20.

Ormerod I, McDonald W, DU BOULAY G, Kendall B, Moseley I, Halliday A . Disseminated lesions at presentation in patients with optic neuritis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1986; 49(2):124-7. PMC: 1028676. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.49.2.124. View