Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 423-427

  Sicotte, Nancy L ^a,b   Voskuhl, Rhonda R ^a   Bouvier, Seth ^a   Klutch, Rochelle ^a   Cohen, Mark S ^a,b   Mazziotta, John C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; High field; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiple sclerosis

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HIGH FIELD NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; HUMAN; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EID: 0038236726     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004424-200307000-00007     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Paty DW, Li DK, Oger JJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1994; 36(Suppl):S95-S96.
2. Miller DH. Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 1995;8(3):210-215.
3. Yousry TA, Filippi M, Becker C, et al. Comparison of MR pulse sequences in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18(5):959-963.
4. Patola WB, Coulter BA, Chipperfield PM, et al. A comparison of conventional spin-echo and fast spin-echo in the detection of multiple sclerosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(5):657-667.
5. Filippi M, Yousry T, Baratti C, et al. Quantitative assessment of MRI lesion load in multiple sclerosis. A comparison of conventional spinecho with fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery. Brain. 1996:1349-1355.
6. Filippi M, Rovaris M, Sormani MP, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in measuring changes in lesion volume on serial brain MR images in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(4): 685-687.
7. Molyneux PD, Tubridy N, Parker GJ, et al. The effect of section thickness on MR lesion detection and quantification in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(9):1715-1720.
8. Filippi M, Marciano N, Capra R, et al. The effect of imprecise repositioning on lesion volume measurements in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 1997;49(1):274-276.
9. Evans AC, Frank JA, Antel J, et al. The role of MRI in clinical trials of multiple sclerosis: comparison of image processing techniques. Ann Neurol. 1997;41(1):125-132.
10. Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Bressi S, et al. Intra- and inter-observer agreement of brain MRI lesion volume measurements in multiple sclerosis. A comparison of techniques. Brain. 1995:1593-1600.
11. Filippi M, Rocca MA, Gasperini C, et al. Interscanner variation in brain MR lesion load measurements in multiple sclerosis using conventional spin-echo, rapid relaxation-enhanced, and fast-FLAIR sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;20(1):133-137.
12. Schima W, Wimberger D, Schneider B, et al. [The importance of magnetic field strength in the MR diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a comparison of 0.5 and 1.5 T]. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 1993;158(4):368-371.
13. Hoult DI, Chen CN, Sank VJ. The field dependence of NMR imaging. II. Arguments concerning an optimal field strength. Magn Reson Med. 1986;3(5):730-746.
14. Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, et al. A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1-100 MHz: Dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys. 1984;11(4):425-448.
15. Cohen MS, DuBois RM, Zeineh MM. Rapid and effective correction of RF inhomogeneity for high field magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapping. 2000;10(4):204-211.
16. Keiper MD, Grossman RI, Hirsch JA, et al. 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):1489-1493.
17. Allmann KH, Walter O, Laubenberger J, et al. Magnetic resonance diagnosis of the anterior labrum and capsule. Effect of field strength on efficacy. Invest Radiol. 1998;33(7):415-420.
18. Kladny B, Gluckert K, Swoboda B, et al. Comparison of low-field (0.2 Tesla) and high-field (1.5 Tesla) magnetic resonance imaging of the knee joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1995;114(5):281-286.
19. Rand T, Imhof H, Turetschek K, et al. Comparison of low field (0.2T) and high field (1.5T) MR imaging in the differentiation of torned from intact menisci. Eur J Radiol. 1999;30(1):22-27.
20. Lee DH, Vellet AD, Eliasziw M, et al. 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):257-262.
21. Jack CR Jr, Berquist TH, Miller GM, et al. Field strength in neuro-MR imaging: A comparison of 0.5 T and 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1990;14(4):505-513.
22. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2001;50(1):121-127.
23. Rudick RA, Fisher E, Lee JC, et al. Use of the brain parenchymal fraction to measure whole brain atrophy in relapsing-remitting MS. Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group. Neurology. 1999; 53(8):1698-1704.
24. Trapp BD, Ransohoff R, Rudick R. Axonal pathology in multiple sclerosis: relationship to neurologic disability. Curr Opin Neurol. 1999; 12(3):295-302.
25. Ertl-Wagner BB, Reith W, Sartor K. Low field-low cost: can low-field magnetic resonance systems replace high-field magnetic resonance systems in the diagnostic assessment of multiple sclerosis patients? Eur Radiol. 2001;11(8):1490-1494.
26. Elster AD. How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol. 1997;5(276):276-280.
27. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444-1452.
28. Shattuck DW, Leahy RM. BrainSuite: An automated cortical surface identification tool. Med Image Anal. 2002;6(2):129-142.
29. Woods RP, Grafton ST, Watson JD, et al. Automated image registration: II. Intersubject validation of linear and nonlinear models. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(1):153-165.
30. Woods RP, Cherry SR, Mazziotta JC. Rapid automated algorithm for aligning and reslicing PET images. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1992; 16(4):620-633.
31. Miller DH, Albert PS, Barkhof F, et al. Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance techniques in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis. US National MS Society Task Force. Ann Neurol. 1996;39(1): 6-16.
32. McFarland HF, Frank JA, Albert PS, et al. Using gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging lesions to monitor disease activity in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1992;32(6):758-766.
33. Matthews PM, Pioro E, Narayanan S, et al. Assessment of lesion pathology in multiple sclerosis using quantitative MRI morphometry and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Brain 1996:715-722.
34. Catalaa I, Grossman RI, Kolson DL, et al. Multiple sclerosis: magnetization transfer histogram analysis of segmented normal-appearing white matter. Radiology. 2000;216(2):351-355.
35. Cercignani M, Iannucci G, Rocca MA, et al. Pathologic damage in MS assessed by diffusion-weighted and magnetization transfer MRI. Neurology. 2000;54(5):1139-1144.
36. Filippi M, Iannucci G, Cercignani M, et al. A quantitative study of water diffusion in multiple sclerosis lesions and normal-appearing white matter using echo-planar imaging. Arch Neurol. 2000;57(7):1017-1021.
37. Filippi M, Inglese M, Rovaris M, et al. Magnetization transfer imaging to monitor the evolution of MS: a 1-year follow-up study [In Process Citation]. Neurology. 2000;55(7):940-946.
38. Sled JG, Pike GB. Standing-wave and RF penetration artifacts caused by elliptic geometry: an electrodynamic analysis of MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1998;17(4):653-662.
39. Chappell PM, Pelc NJ, Foo TK, et al. Comparison of lesion enhancement on spin-echo and gradient-echo images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994;15(1):37-44.
40. Rand S, Maravilla KR, Schmiedl U. Lesion enhancement in radio-frequency spoiled gradient-echo imaging: theory, experimental evaluation, and clinical implications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994; 15(1):27-35.