Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging · 2022
Quantitative susceptibility mapping versus phase imaging to identify multiple sclerosis iron rim lesions with demyelination.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Weiyuan, Sweeney Elizabeth M, Kaunzner Ulrike W, Wang Yi, Gauthier Susan A, Nguyen Thanh D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and high-pass-filtered (HPF) phase imaging for (1) identifying chronic active rim lesions with more myelin damage and (2) distinguishing patients with increased clinical disability in multiple sclerosis.
METHODS: Eighty patients were scanned with QSM for paramagnetic rim detection and Fast Acquisition with Spiral Trajectory and T2prep for myelin water fraction (MWF). Chronic lesions were classified based on the presence/absence of rim on HPF and QSM images. A lesion-level linear mixed-effects model with MWF as the outcome was used to compare myelin damage among the lesion groups. A multiple patient-level linear regression model was fit to establish the association between Expanded Disease Status Scale (EDSS) and the log of the number of rim lesions.
RESULTS: Of 2062 lesions, 188 (9.1%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim+, 203 (9.8%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim-, and the remainder had no rim. In the linear mixed-effects model, HPF rim+/QSM rim+ lesions had significantly lower MWF than both HPF rim+/QSM rim- (p < .001) and HPF rim-/QSM rim- (p < .001) lesions, while the MWF difference between HPF rim+/QSM rim- and HPF rim-/QSM rim- lesions was not statistically significant (p = .130). Holding all other factors constant, the log number of QSM rim+ lesion was associated with EDSS increase (p = .044). The association between the log number of HPF rim+ lesions and EDSS was not statistically significant (p = .206).
CONCLUSIONS: QSM identifies paramagnetic rim lesions that on average have more myelin damage and stronger association with clinical disability than those detected by phase imaging.
METHODS: Eighty patients were scanned with QSM for paramagnetic rim detection and Fast Acquisition with Spiral Trajectory and T2prep for myelin water fraction (MWF). Chronic lesions were classified based on the presence/absence of rim on HPF and QSM images. A lesion-level linear mixed-effects model with MWF as the outcome was used to compare myelin damage among the lesion groups. A multiple patient-level linear regression model was fit to establish the association between Expanded Disease Status Scale (EDSS) and the log of the number of rim lesions.
RESULTS: Of 2062 lesions, 188 (9.1%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim+, 203 (9.8%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim-, and the remainder had no rim. In the linear mixed-effects model, HPF rim+/QSM rim+ lesions had significantly lower MWF than both HPF rim+/QSM rim- (p < .001) and HPF rim-/QSM rim- (p < .001) lesions, while the MWF difference between HPF rim+/QSM rim- and HPF rim-/QSM rim- lesions was not statistically significant (p = .130). Holding all other factors constant, the log number of QSM rim+ lesion was associated with EDSS increase (p = .044). The association between the log number of HPF rim+ lesions and EDSS was not statistically significant (p = .206).
CONCLUSIONS: QSM identifies paramagnetic rim lesions that on average have more myelin damage and stronger association with clinical disability than those detected by phase imaging.