MS Lesions Are Better Detected with 3D T1 Gradient-Echo Than with 2D T1 Spin-Echo Gadolinium-Enhanced Imaging at 3T

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Filippi M,
   3. Rocca MA

   . MR imaging of multiple sclerosis. Radiology 2011;259:659–81

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Río J,
   3. Comabella M,
   4. Montalban X

   . Predicting responders to therapies for multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol 2009;5:553–60

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Freedman MS,
   3. Selchen D,
   4. Arnold DL, et al

   . Treatment optimization in MS: Canadian MS Working Group updated recommendations. Can J Neurol Sci 2013;40:307–23

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Simon JH,
   3. Li D,
   4. Traboulsee A, et al

   . Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:455–61

   FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Lövblad KO,
   3. Anzalone N,
   4. Dorfler A, et al

   . MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:983–89

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Vrenken H,
   3. Jenkinson M,
   4. Horsfield MA, et al

   . Recommendations to improve imaging and analysis of brain lesion load and atrophy in longitudinal studies of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2013;260:2458–71

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   MAGNetic resonance In Multiple Sclerosis. MAGNIMS online. http://www.magnims.eu/. Accessed April 15, 2014.
8. 8.↵
   L'Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques. http://www.edmus.org/en/proj/observatoire.html. Accessed April 15, 2014.
9. 9.↵
   2. Barkhof F,
   3. Pouwels PJ,
   4. Wattjes MP

   . The Holy Grail in diagnostic neuroradiology: 3T or 3D? Eur Radiol 2011;21:449–56

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Moraal B,
    3. Roosendaal SD,
    4. Pouwels PJ, et al

    . Multi-contrast, isotropic, single-slab 3D MR imaging in multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2311–20

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Bink A,
    3. Schmitt M,
    4. 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;16:1104–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Naganawa S,
    3. Koshikawa T,
    4. Nakamura T, et al

    . Comparison of flow artifacts between 2D-FLAIR and 3D-FLAIR sequences at 3 T. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1901–08

    PubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Mugler JP 3rd.,
    3. Brookeman JR

    . Three-dimensional magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo imaging (3D MP RAGE). Magn Reson Med 1990;15:152–57

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Mugler JP 3rd.,
    3. Brookeman JR

    . Theoretical analysis of gadopentetate dimeglumine enhancement in T1-weighted imaging of the brain: comparison of two-dimensional spin-echo and three-dimensional gradient-echo sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993;3:761–69

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Brant-Zawadzki M,
    3. Gillan GD,
    4. Nitz WR

    . MP RAGE: a three-dimensional, T1-weighted, gradient-echo sequence: initial experience in the brain radiology. Radiology 1992;182:769–75

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Chappell PM,
    3. Pelc NJ,
    4. Foo TK, et al

    . Comparison of lesion enhancement on spin-echo and gradient-echo images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:37–44

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Blüml S,
    3. Schad LR,
    4. Scharf J, et al

    . A comparison of magnetization prepared 3D gradient-echo (MP-RAGE) sequences for imaging of intracranial lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 1996;14:329–35

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Wenz F,
    3. Hess T,
    4. Knopp MV, et al

    . 3D MPRAGE evaluation of lesions in the posterior cranial fossa. Magn Reson Imaging 1994;12:553–58

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Nöbauer-Huhmann IM,
    3. Ba-Ssalamah A,
    4. Mlynarik V, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging contrast enhancement of brain tumors at 3 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2002;37:114–19

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Ba-Ssalamah A,
    3. Nöbauer-Huhmann IM,
    4. Pinker K, et al

    . Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Invest Radiol 2003;38:415–22

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Trattnig S,
    3. Pinker K,
    4. Ba-Ssalamah A, et al

    . The optimal use of contrast agents at high field MRI. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1280–87

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Wattjes MP,
    3. Lutterbey GG,
    4. Harzheim M, et al

    . Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: an intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2067–73

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Kakeda S,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. Hiai Y, et al

    . Detection of brain metastasis at 3T: comparison among SE, IR-FSE and 3D-GRE sequences. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2345–51

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Uysal E,
    3. Erturk SM,
    4. Yildirim H, et al

    . Sensitivity of immediate and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI after injection of 0.5 M and 1.0 M gadolinium chelates for detecting multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:697–702

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Goerner FL,
    3. Clarke GD

    . Measuring signal-to-noise ratio in partially parallel imaging MRI. Med Phys 2011;38:5049–57

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Kober T,
    3. Granziera C,
    4. Ribes D, et al

    . MP2RAGE multiple sclerosis magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Invest Radiol 2012;47:346–52

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Yu SM,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Kim SS, et al

    . Correlation of the R1 and R2 values of gadolinium-based MRI contrast media with the ΔHounsfield unit of CT contrast media of identical concentration. Current Applied Physics 2013;13:857–63

    CrossRef
28. 28.↵
    2. Rinck PA,
    3. Muller RN

    . Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol 1999;9:998–1004

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Polman CH,
    3. Reingold SC,
    4. Banwell B, et al

    . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Wiendl H,
    3. Toyka KV,
    4. Rieckmann P, et al

    . Basic and escalating immunomodulatory treatments in multiple sclerosis: current therapeutic recommendations. J Neurol 2008;255:1449–63

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Tourdias T,
    3. Dousset V

    . Neuroinflammatory imaging biomarkers: relevance to multiple sclerosis and its therapy. Neurotherapeutics 2013;10:111–23

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Rovira A,
    3. Swanton J,
    4. Tintore M, et al

    . A single, early magnetic resonance imaging study in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2009;66:587–92

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    2. Wiesinger F,
    3. Van de Moortele PF,
    4. Adriany G, et al

    . Parallel imaging performance as a function of field strength: an experimental investigation using electrodynamic scaling. Magn Reson Med 2004;52:953–64

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Hodel J,
    3. Outteryck O,
    4. Ryo E, et al

    . Accuracy of postcontrast 3D turbo spin-echo MR sequence for the detection of enhanced inflammatory lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:519–23

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    2. Saranathan M,
    3. Tourdias T,
    4. Kerr AB, et al

    . Optimization of magnetization-prepared 3-dimensional fluid attenuated inversion recovery imaging for lesion detection at 7 T. Invest Radiol 2014;49:290–98

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Mugler JP 3rd.

    . Optimized three-dimensional fast-spin-echo MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:745–67

    CrossRefPubMed