Display options
Cite
Bian W, Tranvinh E, Tourdias T, et al. In Vivo 7T MR Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Reveals Opposite Susceptibility Contrast between Cortical and White Matter Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(10):1808-1815doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4830.
Bian, W., Tranvinh, E., Tourdias, T., Han, M., Liu, T., Wang, Y., Rutt, B., & Zeineh, M. M. (2016). In Vivo 7T MR Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Reveals Opposite Susceptibility Contrast between Cortical and White Matter Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 37(10), 1808-1815. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4830
Bian, W, et al. "In Vivo 7T MR Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Reveals Opposite Susceptibility Contrast between Cortical and White Matter Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis." AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology vol. 37,10 (2016): 1808-1815. doi: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4830
Bian W, Tranvinh E, Tourdias T, Han M, Liu T, Wang Y, Rutt B, Zeineh MM. In Vivo 7T MR Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Reveals Opposite Susceptibility Contrast between Cortical and White Matter Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Oct;37(10):1808-1815. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4830. Epub 2016 Jun 09. PMID: 27282860; PMCID: PMC5148739.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Oct;37(10):1808-1815. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4830. Epub 2016 Jun 09.

In Vivo 7T MR Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Reveals Opposite Susceptibility Contrast between Cortical and White Matter Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology

W Bian, E Tranvinh, T Tourdias, M Han, T Liu, Y Wang, B Rutt, M M Zeineh

Affiliations

  1. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., E.T., B.R., M.M.Z.).
  2. Service de NeuroImagerie Diagnostique et Thérapeutique (T.T.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux Cedex, France.
  3. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U 862 (T.T.), Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux Cedex, France.
  4. Neurology (M.H.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.
  5. Department of Radiology (T.L., Y.W.), Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York.
  6. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., E.T., B.R., M.M.Z.) [email protected].

PMID: 27282860 PMCID: PMC5148739 DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4830

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic susceptibility measured with quantitative susceptibility mapping has been proposed as a biomarker for demyelination and inflammation in patients with MS, but investigations have mostly been on white matter lesions. A detailed characterization of cortical lesions has not been performed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate magnetic susceptibility in both cortical and WM lesions in MS by using quantitative susceptibility mapping.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with MS were scanned on a 7T MR imaging scanner with T1-, T2-, and T2*-weighted sequences. The T2*-weighted sequence was used to perform quantitative susceptibility mapping and generate tissue susceptibility maps. The susceptibility contrast of a lesion was quantified as the relative susceptibility between the lesion and its adjacent normal-appearing parenchyma. The susceptibility difference between cortical and WM lesions was assessed by using a

RESULTS: The mean relative susceptibility was significantly negative for cortical lesions (

CONCLUSIONS: The negative susceptibility in cortical lesions suggests that iron loss dominates the susceptibility contrast in cortical lesions. The opposite susceptibility contrast between cortical and WM lesions may reflect both their structural (degree of myelination) and pathologic (degree of inflammation) differences, in which the latter may lead to a faster release of iron in cortical lesions.

© 2016 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

References

  1. Arch Neurol. 2010 Jul;67(7):812-8 - PubMed
  2. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 Jan;23(1):1-25 - PubMed
  3. Mult Scler. 2013 Jan;19(1):69-75 - PubMed
  4. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57573 - PubMed
  5. Brain. 2015 Apr;138(Pt 4):932-45 - PubMed
  6. Neuroimage. 2004;23 Suppl 1:S208-19 - PubMed
  7. Ann Neurol. 2001 Jul;50(1):121-7 - PubMed
  8. Magn Reson Med. 2015 May;73(5):1786-94 - PubMed
  9. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Feb;43(2):463-73 - PubMed
  10. Ann Neurol. 2001 Sep;50(3):389-400 - PubMed
  11. Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 16;59(2):1413-9 - PubMed
  12. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jul;42(1):23-41 - PubMed
  13. Radiology. 2014 Apr;271(1):183-92 - PubMed
  14. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2007;79:589-620 - PubMed
  15. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 10;9(10):e108863 - PubMed
  16. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010 Aug;6(8):438-44 - PubMed
  17. JAMA Neurol. 2015 Sep;72(9):1004-12 - PubMed
  18. Neuroimage. 2012 Feb 1;59(3):2560-8 - PubMed
  19. Brain. 2011 Dec;134(Pt 12):3602-15 - PubMed
  20. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 23;107(8):3834-9 - PubMed
  21. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2007 Apr;66(4):321-8 - PubMed
  22. Neurology. 2015 Nov 10;85(19):1702-9 - PubMed
  23. Invest Radiol. 2014 May;49(5):290-8 - PubMed
  24. Mult Scler. 2015 Nov;21(13):1626-8 - PubMed
  25. Ann Neurol. 2013 Dec;74(6):848-61 - PubMed
  26. Radiology. 2012 Jan;262(1):206-15 - PubMed
  27. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Dec;42(6):1592-600 - PubMed
  28. Magn Reson Med. 2015 Aug;74(2):564-70 - PubMed
  29. Mult Scler. 2016 Sep;22(10):1306-14 - PubMed
  30. Magn Reson Med. 2015 Jan;73(1):82-101 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support