Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 4/2018

Open Access 01-04-2018 | Magnetic Resonance

Conventional and synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a comparative study

Authors: Wolfgang Krauss, Martin Gunnarsson, Margareta Nilsson, Per Thunberg

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using synthetic and conventional MRI.

Materials and methods

Synthetic and conventional axial images were prospectively acquired for 52 patients with diagnosed MS. Quantitative MRI (qMRI) was used for measuring proton density and relaxation times (T1, T2) and then, based on these parameters, synthetic T1W, T2W and FLAIR images were calculated. Image stacks were reviewed blindly, independently and in random order by two radiologists. The number and location for all lesions were documented and categorised. A combined report of lesion load and presence of contrast-enhancing lesions was compiled for each patient. Agreement was evaluated using kappa statistic.

Results

There was no significant difference in lesion detection using synthetic and conventional MRI in any anatomical region or for any of the three image types. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were mainly higher (p < 0.05) using conventional images but there was no significant difference in any specific region or for any image type. There was no significant difference in the outcome of the combined reports.

Conclusion

Synthetic MR images show potential to be used in the assessment of MS dissemination in space (DIS) despite a slightly lower inter- and intra-observer agreement compared to conventional MRI.

Key Points

• Synthetic MR images may potentially be useful in the assessment of MS.
• Examination times may be shortened.
• Inter- and intra-observer agreement is generally higher using conventional MRI.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Warntjes JB, Leinhard OD, West J, Lundberg P (2008) Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: Optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 60:320–329CrossRefPubMed Warntjes JB, Leinhard OD, West J, Lundberg P (2008) Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: Optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 60:320–329CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Newbould RD, Skare ST, Alley MT, Gold GE, Bammer R (2010) Three-dimensional T(1), T(2) and proton density mapping with inversion recovery balanced SSFP. Magn Reson Imaging 28:1374–1382CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Newbould RD, Skare ST, Alley MT, Gold GE, Bammer R (2010) Three-dimensional T(1), T(2) and proton density mapping with inversion recovery balanced SSFP. Magn Reson Imaging 28:1374–1382CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Hagiwara A, Hori M, Suzuki M et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced synthetic MRI for the detection of brain metastases. Acta Radiol Open 5:2058460115626757PubMedPubMedCentral Hagiwara A, Hori M, Suzuki M et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced synthetic MRI for the detection of brain metastases. Acta Radiol Open 5:2058460115626757PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Vagberg M, Axelsson M, Birgander R et al (2016) Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Association and the Swedish Neuroradiological Society. Acta Neurol Scand. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12667 Vagberg M, Axelsson M, Birgander R et al (2016) Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Association and the Swedish Neuroradiological Society. Acta Neurol Scand. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ane.​12667
10.
go back to reference Lovblad KO, Anzalone N, Dorfler A et al (2010) MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:983–989CrossRefPubMed Lovblad KO, Anzalone N, Dorfler A et al (2010) MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:983–989CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Rovira A, Wattjes MP, Tintore M et al (2015) Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol 11:471–482CrossRefPubMed Rovira A, Wattjes MP, Tintore M et al (2015) Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol 11:471–482CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
go back to reference Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B et al (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69:292–302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B et al (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69:292–302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Krauss W, Gunnarsson M, Andersson T, Thunberg P (2015) Accuracy and reproducibility of a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging method for concurrent measurements of tissue relaxation times and proton density. Magn Reson Imaging 33:584–591CrossRefPubMed Krauss W, Gunnarsson M, Andersson T, Thunberg P (2015) Accuracy and reproducibility of a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging method for concurrent measurements of tissue relaxation times and proton density. Magn Reson Imaging 33:584–591CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Warntjes JB, Dahlqvist O, Lundberg P (2007) Novel method for rapid, simultaneous T1, T*2, and proton density quantification. Magn Reson Med 57:528–537CrossRefPubMed Warntjes JB, Dahlqvist O, Lundberg P (2007) Novel method for rapid, simultaneous T1, T*2, and proton density quantification. Magn Reson Med 57:528–537CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Altman DG, Bland MJ (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310CrossRef Altman DG, Bland MJ (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Barkhof F, Filippi M, van Waesberghe JH, Campi A, Miller DH, Ader HJ (1999) Interobserver agreement for diagnostic MRI criteria in suspected multiple sclerosis. Neuroradiology 41:347–350CrossRefPubMed Barkhof F, Filippi M, van Waesberghe JH, Campi A, Miller DH, Ader HJ (1999) Interobserver agreement for diagnostic MRI criteria in suspected multiple sclerosis. Neuroradiology 41:347–350CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Zipoli V, Portaccio E, Siracusa G, Pracucci G, Sorbi S, Amato MP (2003) Interobserver agreement on Poser's and the new McDonald's diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 9:481–485CrossRefPubMed Zipoli V, Portaccio E, Siracusa G, Pracucci G, Sorbi S, Amato MP (2003) Interobserver agreement on Poser's and the new McDonald's diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 9:481–485CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Korteweg T, Uitdehaag BM, Knol DL et al (2007) Interobserver agreement on the radiological criteria of the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol 17:67–71CrossRefPubMed Korteweg T, Uitdehaag BM, Knol DL et al (2007) Interobserver agreement on the radiological criteria of the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol 17:67–71CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Tanenbaum LN, Tsiouris AJ, Johnson AN et al (2017) Synthetic MRI for clinical neuroimaging: Results of the magnetic resonance image compilation (MAGiC) prospective, multicenter, multireader trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:1103–1110CrossRefPubMed Tanenbaum LN, Tsiouris AJ, Johnson AN et al (2017) Synthetic MRI for clinical neuroimaging: Results of the magnetic resonance image compilation (MAGiC) prospective, multicenter, multireader trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:1103–1110CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Betts AM, Leach JL, Jones BV, Zhang B, Serai S (2016) Brain imaging with synthetic MR in children: clinical quality assessment. Neuroradiology 58:1017–1026CrossRefPubMed Betts AM, Leach JL, Jones BV, Zhang B, Serai S (2016) Brain imaging with synthetic MR in children: clinical quality assessment. Neuroradiology 58:1017–1026CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385CrossRefPubMed Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Warntjes JB, Engstrom M, Tisell A, Lundberg P (2013) Brain characterization using normalized quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One 8:e70864CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Warntjes JB, Engstrom M, Tisell A, Lundberg P (2013) Brain characterization using normalized quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One 8:e70864CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Hagiwara A, Hori M, Yokoyama K et al (2016) Utility of a multiparametric quantitative MRI model that assesses myelin and edema for evaluating plaques, periplaque white matter, and normal-appearing white matter in patients with multiple sclerosis: A feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4977 Hagiwara A, Hori M, Yokoyama K et al (2016) Utility of a multiparametric quantitative MRI model that assesses myelin and edema for evaluating plaques, periplaque white matter, and normal-appearing white matter in patients with multiple sclerosis: A feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3174/​ajnr.​A4977
26.
go back to reference Blystad I, Hakansson I, Tisell A et al (2016) Quantitative MRI for analysis of active multiple sclerosis lesions without gadolinium-based contrast agent. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:94–100CrossRefPubMed Blystad I, Hakansson I, Tisell A et al (2016) Quantitative MRI for analysis of active multiple sclerosis lesions without gadolinium-based contrast agent. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:94–100CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference West J, Aalto A, Tisell A et al (2014) Normal appearing and diffusely abnormal white matter in patients with multiple sclerosis assessed with quantitative MR. PLoS One 9:e95161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral West J, Aalto A, Tisell A et al (2014) Normal appearing and diffusely abnormal white matter in patients with multiple sclerosis assessed with quantitative MR. PLoS One 9:e95161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference West J, Blystad I, Engstrom M, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2013) Application of quantitative MRI for brain tissue segmentation at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths. PLoS One 8:e74795CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral West J, Blystad I, Engstrom M, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2013) Application of quantitative MRI for brain tissue segmentation at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths. PLoS One 8:e74795CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference West J, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2012) Novel whole brain segmentation and volume estimation using quantitative MRI. Eur Radiol 22:998–1007CrossRefPubMed West J, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2012) Novel whole brain segmentation and volume estimation using quantitative MRI. Eur Radiol 22:998–1007CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Stankiewicz JM, Glanz BI, Healy BC et al (2011) Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 21:e50–e56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stankiewicz JM, Glanz BI, Healy BC et al (2011) Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 21:e50–e56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Conventional and synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a comparative study
Authors
Wolfgang Krauss
Martin Gunnarsson
Margareta Nilsson
Per Thunberg
Publication date
01-04-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5100-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

European Radiology 4/2018 Go to the issue