Synthetic MRI in the Detection of Multiple Sclerosis Plaques

Fellows’ Journal Club

In this retrospective study, synthetic T2-weighted, FLAIR, double inversion recovery, and phase-sensitive inversion recovery images were produced in 12 patients with MS after quantification of T1 and T2 values and proton density. Double inversion recovery images were optimized for each patient by adjusting the TI. The number of visible plaques was determined by a radiologist for a set of these 4 types of synthetic MR images and a set of conventional T1-weighted inversion recovery, T2-weighted, and FLAIR images. Conventional 3D double inversion recovery and other available images were used as the criterion standard. Synthetic MR imaging enabled detection of more MS plaques than conventional MR imaging in a comparable acquisition time (approximately 7 minutes). The contrast for MS plaques on synthetic double inversion recovery images was better than on conventional double inversion recovery images.

Abstract

Figure 1 from paper
An example of DIR optimization. A DIR image with a second TI of 460 ms (A) (as determined according to the equations in the main text) shows better delineation of MS plaques than a DIR image with a second TI of 360 ms (B) or 560 ms (C).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Synthetic MR imaging enables the creation of various contrast-weighted images including double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery from a single MR imaging quantification scan. Here, we assessed whether synthetic MR imaging is suitable for detecting MS plaques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative and conventional MR imaging data on 12 patients with MS were retrospectively analyzed. Synthetic T2-weighted, FLAIR, double inversion recovery, and phase-sensitive inversion recovery images were produced after quantification of T1 and T2 values and proton density. Double inversion recovery images were optimized for each patient by adjusting the TI. The number of visible plaques was determined by a radiologist for a set of these 4 types of synthetic MR images and a set of conventional T1-weighted inversion recovery, T2-weighted, and FLAIR images. Conventional 3D double inversion recovery and other available images were used as the criterion standard. The total acquisition time of synthetic MR imaging was 7 minutes 12 seconds and that of conventional MR imaging was 6 minutes 29 seconds The lesion-to-WM contrast and lesion-to-WM contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated and compared between synthetic and conventional double inversion recovery images.

RESULTS

The total plaques detected by synthetic and conventional MR images were 157 and 139, respectively (P = .014). The lesion-to-WM contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio on synthetic double inversion recovery images were superior to those on conventional double inversion recovery images (P = .001 and < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Synthetic MR imaging enabled detection of more MS plaques than conventional MR imaging in a comparable acquisition time. The contrast for MS plaques on synthetic double inversion recovery images was better than on conventional double inversion recovery images.

Read this article: http://bit.ly/2kHnsR5

Synthetic MRI in the Detection of Multiple Sclerosis Plaques
Jeffrey Ross
Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function get_cimyFieldValue() in /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-content/themes/ample-child/author-bio.php:13 Stack trace: #0 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-content/themes/ample-child/content-single.php(35): include() #1 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-includes/template.php(812): require('/home2/ajnrblog...') #2 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-includes/template.php(745): load_template('/home2/ajnrblog...', false, Array) #3 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-includes/general-template.php(206): locate_template(Array, true, false, Array) #4 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-content/themes/ample/single.php(21): get_template_part('content', 'single') #5 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include('/home2/ajnrblog...') #6 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home2/ajnrblog...') #7 /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home2/ajnrblog...') #8 {main} thrown in /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/wp-content/themes/ample-child/author-bio.php on line 13