Premium
Histogram analysis of quantitative T 1 and MT maps from ultrahigh field MRI in clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
Author(s) -
AlRadaideh Ali,
Mougin Olivier E.,
Lim SuYin,
Chou IJun,
Constantinescu Cris S.,
Gowland Penny
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
nmr in biomedicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.278
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 1099-1492
pISSN - 0952-3480
DOI - 10.1002/nbm.3385
Subject(s) - magnetization transfer , multiple sclerosis , nuclear medicine , white matter , nuclear magnetic resonance , clinically isolated syndrome , voxel , echo time , correlation , fluid attenuated inversion recovery , magnetic resonance imaging , medicine , chemistry , physics , radiology , mathematics , geometry , psychiatry
This study used quantitative MRI to study normal appearing white matter (NAWM) in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis and relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). This was done at ultrahigh field (7 T) for greater spatial resolution and sensitivity. 17 CIS patients, 11 RRMS patients, and 20 age‐matched healthy controls were recruited. They were scanned using a 3D inversion recovery turbo field echo sequence to measure the longitudinal relaxation time ( T 1 ). A 3D magnetization transfer prepared turbo field echo (MT‐TFE) sequence was also acquired, first without a presaturation pulse and then with the MT presaturation pulse applied at −1.05 kHz and +1.05 kHz off resonance from water to produce two magnetization transfer ratio maps (MTR(−) and MTR(+)). Histogram analysis was performed on the signal from the voxels in the NAWM mask. The upper quartile cut‐off of the T 1 histogram was significantly higher in RRMS patients than in controls ( p < 0.05), but there was no difference in CIS. In contrast, MTR was significantly different between CIS or RRMS patients and controls ( p < 0.05) for most histogram measures considered. The difference between MTR(+) and MTR(−) signals showed that NOE contributions dominated the changes found. There was a weak negative correlation ( r = −0.46, p < 0.05) between the mode of T 1 distributions and healthy controls' age; this was not significant for MTR(+) ( r = −0.34, p > 0.05) or MTR(−) ( r = 0.13, p > 0.05). There was no significant correlation between the median of T 1 , MTR(−), or MTR(+) and the age of healthy controls. Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between EDSS or disease duration and T 1 , MTR(−), or MTR(+) for either CIS or RRMS patients. In conclusion, MTR was found to be more sensitive to early changes in MS disease than T 1 . Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.