Comparison of 3D Cube FLAIR with 2D FLAIR for Multiple Sclerosis Imaging at 3 Tesla

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: Three-dimensional (3 D) MRI sequences allow improved spatial resolution with good signal and contrast properties as well as multiplanar reconstruction. We sought to compare Cube, a 3 D FLAIR sequence, to a standard 2 D FLAIR sequence in multiple sclerosis (MS) imaging.

Materials and Methods: Examinations were performed in the clinical routine on a 3.0 Tesla scanner. 12 patients with definite MS were included. Lesions with MS-typical properties on the images of Cube FLAIR and 2 D FLAIR sequences were counted and allocated to different brain regions. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were calculated.

Results: With 384 the overall number of lesions found with Cube FLAIR was significantly higher than with 2 D FLAIR (N = 221). The difference was mostly accounted for by supratentorial lesions (N = 372 vs. N = 216) while the infratentorial lesion counts were low in both sequences. SNRs and CNRs were significantly higher in CUBE FLAIR with the exception of the CNR of lesion to gray matter, which was not significantly different.

Conclusion: Cube FLAIR showed a higher sensitivity for MS lesions compared to a 2 D FLAIR sequence. 3 D FLAIR might replace 2 D FLAIR sequences in MS imaging in the future.

Key points:

1. MRI findings are an important part of multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria.

2. Significantly more lesions were detected with 3 D Cube FLAIR compared to 2 D FLAIR.

3. Signal and contrast properties of 3 D Cube FLAIR were mostly superior to 2 D FLAIR.

4. 3 D FLAIR might replace 2 D FLAIR in the future

Citation Format:

• Patzig M, Burke M, Brückmann H et al. Comparison of 3D Cube FLAIR with 2D FLAIR for Multiple Sclerosis Imaging at 3 Tesla. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 484 – 488

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Dreidimensionale MRT-Sequenzen erlauben sowohl eine verbesserte räumliche Auflösung bei guten Signal- und Kontrasteigenschaften als auch multiplanare Rekonstruktionen. Wir verglichen Cube, eine 3-D-FLAIR-Sequenz, mit einer Standard-2 D-FLAIR-Sequenz bei der Bildgebung der multiplen Sklerose (MS).

Material und Methoden: Die Untersuchungen wurden an einem 3-Tesla-Scanner in der klinischen Routine durchgeführt. 12 Patienten mit gesicherter MS wurden eingeschlossen. Läsionen mit MS-typischen Eigenschaften wurden gezählt und verschiedenen Hirnregionen zugeordnet. Signal-Rausch-(SNR) und Kontrast-Rausch-Verhältnisse (CNR) wurden berechnet.

Ergebnisse: Die Anzahl der insgesamt detektierten Läsionen war mit 384 mit der Cube-FLAIR-Sequenz signifikant höher als mit der 2-D-FLAIR-Sequenz (N = 221). Der Unterschied kam hauptsächlich durch supratentorielle Läsionen zustande (N = 372 gegenüber N = 216), während die Anzahl gefundener infratentorieller Läsionen mit beiden Sequenzen gering war. Die berechneten SNR und CNR lagen bei der Cube-FLAIR signifikant höher als bei der 2-D-FLAIR, mit Ausnahme der CNR von Läsion zu grauer Substanz, welche sich nicht signifikant unterschied.

Schlussfolgerung: Die Cube-FLAIR-Sequenz zeigte eine höhere Sensitivität für MS-Läsionen gegenüber einer 2-D-FLAIR-Sequenz. 3-D-FLAIR- könnten 2-D-FLAIR-Sequenzen in Zukunft ersetzen.

Kernaussagen:

1. MRT-Befunde sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Diagnosekriterien für multiple Sklerose.

2. Mit 3-D-Cube-FLAIR wurden mehr Läsionen nachgewiesen als mit der 2-D-FLAIR.

3. Signal- und Kontrasteigenschaften der 3-D-Cube-FLAIR waren größtenteils signifikant besser gegenüber der 2-D-FLAIR.

4. 3-D-FLAIR könnte 2-D-FLAIR in Zukunft ersetzen.

• References

• 1 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: 121-127
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Polman CH, Wolinsky JS, Reingold SC. Multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria: three years later. Mult Scler 2005; 11: 5-12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Brex PA, Ciccarelli O, O'Riordan JI et al. A longitudinal study of abnormalities on MRI and disability from multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 158-164
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Fisniku LK, Brex PA, Altmann DR et al. Disability and T2 MRI lesions: a 20-year follow-up of patients with relapse onset of multiple sclerosis. Brain 2008; 131: 808-817
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Comi G, Filippi M, Barkhof F et al. Effect of early interferon treatment on conversion to definite multiple sclerosis: a randomised study. Lancet 2001; 357: 1576-1582
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Jacobs LD, Beck RW, Simon JH et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis. CHAMPS Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 898-904
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Filippi M, Yousry T, Baratti C et al. Quantitative assessment of MRI lesion load in multiple sclerosis. A comparison of conventional spin-echo with fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery. Brain 1996; 119: 1349-1355
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Brau AC, Beatty PJ, Skare S et al. Comparison of reconstruction accuracy and efficiency among autocalibrating data-driven parallel imaging methods. Magn Reson Med 2008; 59: 382-395
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Lum DP, Busse RF, Francois CJ et al. Increased volume of coverage for abdominal contrast-enhanced MR angiography with two-dimensional autocalibrating parallel imaging: initial experience at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 1093-1100
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Gold GE, Busse RF, Beehler C et al. Isotropic MRI of the knee with 3D fast spin-echo extended echo-train acquisition (XETA): initial experience. Am J Roentgenol Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 1287-1293
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Stevens KJ, Busse RF, Han E et al. Ankle: isotropic MR imaging with 3D-FSE-cube--initial experience in healthy volunteers. Radiology 2008; 249: 1026-1033
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Lummel N, Schoepf V, Burke M et al. 3D fluid-attenuated inversion recovery imaging: reduced CSF artifacts and enhanced sensitivity and specificity for subarachnoid hemorrhage. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32: 2054-2060
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Busse RF, Hariharan H, Vu A et al. Fast spin echo sequences with very long echo trains: design of variable refocusing flip angle schedules and generation of clinical T2 contrast. Magn Reson Med 2006; 55: 1030-1037
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Tubridy N, Barker GJ, Macmanus DG et al. Three-dimensional fast fluid attenuated inversion recovery (3D fast FLAIR): a new MRI sequence which increases the detectable cerebral lesion load in multiple sclerosis. Br J Radiol 1998; 71: 840-845
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Tan IL, Pouwels PJ, van Schijndel RA et al. Isotropic 3D fast FLAIR imaging of the brain in multiple sclerosis patients: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 559-567
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Mugler 3rd JP, Bao S, Mulkern RV et al. Optimized single-slab three-dimensional spin-echo MR imaging of the brain. Radiology 2000; 216: 891-899
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Bink A, Schmitt M, Gaa J et al. Detection of lesions in multiple sclerosis by 2D FLAIR and single-slab 3D FLAIR sequences at 3.0 T: initial results. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1104-1110
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Moraal B, Roosendaal SD, Pouwels PJ et al. Multi-contrast, isotropic, single-slab 3D MR imaging in multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2311-2320
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 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: 1715-1720
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Dolezal O, Dwyer MG, Horakova D et al. Detection of cortical lesions is dependent on choice of slice thickness in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int Rev Neurobiol 2007; 79: 475-489
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 McGowan JC, Patel RS. Technical issues for MRI examination of the posterior fossa. J Neurol Sci 2000; 172 (Suppl. 01) S40-S42
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Stevenson VL, Parker GJ, Barker GJ et al. Variations in T1 and T2 relaxation times of normal appearing white matter and lesions in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2000; 178: 81-87
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Bo L, Geurts JJ, Mork SJ et al. Grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 2006; 183: 48-50
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Kutzelnigg A, Lassmann H. Cortical demyelination in multiple sclerosis: a substrate for cognitive deficits?. J Neurol Sci 2006; 245: 123-126
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Kutzelnigg A, Lucchinetti CF, Stadelmann C et al. Cortical demyelination and diffuse white matter injury in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2005; 128: 2705-2712
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Wattjes MP, Barkhof F. High field MRI in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: high field-high yield?. Neuroradiology 2009; 51: 279-292
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Wattjes MP, Harzheim M, Kuhl CK et al. Does high-field MR imaging have an influence on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes according to current diagnostic mr imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 1794-1798
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Wattjes MP, Harzheim M, Lutterbey GG et al. Does high field MRI allow an earlier diagnosis of multiple sclerosis?. J Neurol 2008; 255: 1159-1163
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar