Morphology-Specific Discrimination between MS White Matter Lesions and Benign White Matter Hyperintensities Using Ultra-High-Field MRI

References

1. 1.↵
   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 doi:10.1002/ana.22366 pmid:21387374

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Freedman MS,
   3. Comi G,
   4. De Stefano N, et al

   . Moving toward earlier treatment of multiple sclerosis: findings from a decade of clinical trials and implications for clinical practice. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2014;3:147–55 doi:10.1016/j.msard.2013.07.001 pmid:25878002

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Miller AE,
   3. Wolinsky JS,
   4. Kappos L, et al

   ; TOPIC Study Group. Oral teriflunomide for patients with a first clinical episode suggestive of multiple sclerosis (TOPIC): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol 2014;13:977–86 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70191-7 pmid:25192851

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Comi G,
   3. De Stefano N,
   4. Freedman MS, et al

   . Comparison of two dosing frequencies of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with a first clinical demyelinating event suggestive of multiple sclerosis (REFLEX): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2012;11:33–41 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70262-9 pmid:22146409

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Kappos L,
   3. Freedman MS,
   4. Polman CH, et al

   ; BENEFIT Study Group. Effect of early versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment on disability after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 3-year follow-up analysis of the BENEFIT study. Lancet 2007;370:389–97 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61194-5 pmid:17679016

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Hannoun S,
   3. Heidelberg D,
   4. Hourani R, et al

   ; Imaging Working Group of the Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques. Diagnostic value of 3DFLAIR in clinical practice for the detection of infratentorial lesions in multiple sclerosis in regard to dual echo T2 sequences. Eur J Radiol 2018;102:146–51 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.03.017 pmid:29685528

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Tan L,
   3. van Schijndel RA,
   4. Pouwels PJ, et al

   . MR venography of multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1039–42 pmid:10871010

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Grabner G,
   3. Dal-Bianco A,
   4. Schernthaner M, et al

   . Analysis of multiple sclerosis lesions using a fusion of 3.0 T FLAIR and 7.0 T SWI phase: FLAIR SWI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;33:543–49 doi:10.1002/jmri.22452 pmid:21563237

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Kau T,
   3. Taschwer M,
   4. Deutschmann H, et al

   . The “central vein sign”: is there a place for susceptibility weighted imaging in possible multiple sclerosis? Eur Radiol 2013;23:1956–62 doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2791-4 pmid:23436147

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Mistry N,
    3. Dixon J,
    4. Tallantyre E, et al

    . Central veins in brain lesions visualized with high-field magnetic resonance imaging: a pathologically specific diagnostic biomarker for inflammatory demyelination in the brain. JAMA Neurol 2013;70:623–28 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.1405 pmid:23529352

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Cortese R,
    3. Magnollay L,
    4. Tur C, et al

    . Value of the central vein sign at 3T to differentiate MS from seropositive NMOSD. Neurology 2018;90:e1183–90 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000005256 pmid:29514948

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Cai M,
    3. Zhang XF,
    4. Qiao HH, et al

    . Susceptibility-weighted imaging of the venous networks around the brain stem. Neuroradiology 2015;57:163–69 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1450-z pmid:25326168

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Sati P,
    3. Oh J,
    4. Constable RT, et al

    ; NAIMS Cooperative. The central vein sign and its clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a consensus statement from the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative. Nat Rev Neurol 2016;12:714–22 doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2016.166 pmid:27834394

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Springer E,
    3. Dymerska B,
    4. Cardoso PL, et al

    . Comparison of routine brain imaging at 3 T and 7 T. Invest Radiol 2016;51:469–82 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000256 pmid:26863580

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Tallantyre EC,
    3. Dixon JE,
    4. Donaldson I, et al

    . Ultra-high-field imaging distinguishes MS lesions from asymptomatic white matter lesions. Neurology 2011;76:534–39 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31820b7630 pmid:21300968

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Zwanenburg JJ,
    3. Hendrikse J,
    4. Visser F, et al

    . Fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI at 7.0 Tesla: comparison with 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2010;20:915–22 doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1620-2 pmid:19802613

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Tallantyre EC,
    3. Morgan PS,
    4. Dixon JE, et al

    . A comparison of 3T and 7T in the detection of small parenchymal veins within MS lesions. Invest Radiol 2009;44:491–94 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181b4c144 pmid:19652606

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Visser F,
    3. Zwanenburg JJ,
    4. Hoogduin JM, et al

    . High-resolution magnetization-prepared 3D-FLAIR imaging at 7.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2010;64:194–202 doi:10.1002/mrm.22397 pmid:20572143

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Hosseini Z,
    3. Liu J,
    4. Solovey I, et al

    . Susceptibility-weighted imaging using inter-echo-variance channel combination for improved contrast at 7 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:1113–24 doi:10.1002/jmri.25409 pmid:27527348

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Rudko DA,
    3. Solovey I,
    4. Gati JS, et al

    . Multiple sclerosis: improved identification of disease-relevant changes in gray and white matter by using susceptibility-based MR imaging. Radiology 2014;272:851–64 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132475 pmid:24828000

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Curtis AT,
    3. Gilbert KM,
    4. Klassen LM, et al

    . Slice-by-slice B1+ shimming at 7 T. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:1109–16 doi:10.1002/mrm.23319 pmid:22213531

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Jenkinson M,
    3. Beckmann CF,
    4. Behrens TE, et al

    . FSL. Neuroimage 2012;62:782–90 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015 pmid:21979382

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Smith SM

    . Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp 2002;17:143–55 doi:10.1002/hbm.10062 pmid:12391568

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Jenkinson M,
    3. Bannister P,
    4. Brady M, et al

    . Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage 2002;17:825–41 doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 pmid:12377157

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Brady M,
    4. Smith S

    . Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001;20:45–57 pmid:11293691

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Rosset A,
    3. Spadola L,
    4. Ratib O

    . OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:205–16 doi:10.1007/s10278-004-1014-6 pmid:15534753

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Dal-Bianco A,
    3. Hametner S,
    4. Grabner G, et al

    . Veins in plaques of multiple sclerosis patients: a longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study at 7 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2015;25:2913–20 doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3719-y pmid:25903703

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Fazekas F,
    3. Offenbacher H,
    4. Fuchs S, et al

    . Criteria for an increased specificity of MRI interpretation in elderly subjects with suspected multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1988;38:1822–25 doi:10.1212/WNL.38.12.1822 pmid:3057397

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    2. Dal-Bianco A,
    3. Grabner G,
    4. Kronnerwetter C, et al

    . Slow expansion of multiple sclerosis iron rim lesions: pathology and 7 T magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Neuropathol 2017;133:25–42 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1636-z pmid:27796537

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Labate A,
    3. Gambardella A,
    4. Aguglia U, et al

    . Temporal lobe abnormalities on brain MRI in healthy volunteers; a prospective case-control study. Neurology 2010;74:553–57 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181cff747 pmid:20089943

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    2. Vernooij MW,
    3. Ikram MA,
    4. Tanghe HL, et al

    . Incidental findings on brain MRI in the general population. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1821–28 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070972 pmid:17978290

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Sati P,
    3. George IC,
    4. Shea CD, et al

    . FLAIR*: a combined MR contrast technique for visualizing white matter lesions and parenchymal veins. Radiology 2012;265:926–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120208 pmid:23074257

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science