Accuracy of Noncontrast T2 SPACE in Active MS Cord Lesion Detection

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Frohman EM,
   3. Racke MK,
   4. Raine CS

   . Medical Progress Multiple Sclerosis-The Plaque and Its Pathogenesis. 2006. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra052130. Accessed July 8, 2021
2. 2.↵
   2. Gh Popescu BF,
   3. Pirko I,
   4. Lucchinetti CF

   . Pathology of multiple sclerosis: where do we stand? Continuum (Minneap Minn) 2013;19(4 Multiple Sclerosis):901–21 doi:10.1212/01.CON.0000433291.23091.65 pmid:23917093

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Thompson AJ,
   3. Banwell BL,
   4. Barkhof F, et al

   . Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:162–73 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2 pmid:29275977

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Mattay RR,
   3. Davtyan K,
   4. Bilello M, et al

   . Do all patients with multiple sclerosis benefit from the use of contrast on serial follow-up MR imaging? A retrospective analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:2001–06 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5828 pmid:30287455

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Fechner A,
   3. Savatovsky J,
   4. El Methni J, et al

   . A 3T phase-sensitive inversion recovery MRI sequence improves detection of cervical spinal cord lesions and shows active lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:370–75 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5941 pmid:30679225

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Eichinger P,
   3. Schön S,
   4. Pongratz V, et al

   . Accuracy of unenhanced MRI in the detection of new brain lesions in multiple sclerosis. Radiology 2019;291:429–35 doi:10.1148/radiol.2019181568 pmid:30860448

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. McDonald RJ,
   3. McDonald JS,
   4. Kallmes DF, et al

   . Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015;275:772–82 doi:10.1148/radiol.15150025 pmid:25742194

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Kanda T,
   3. Fukusato T,
   4. Matsuda M, et al

   . Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015;276:228–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142690 pmid:25942417

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Gulani V,
   3. Calamante F,
   4. Shellock FG, et al

   ; International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2017;16:564–70 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30158-8 pmid:28653648

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Iyad N,
    3. Ahmad M S,
    4. Alkhatib SG, et al

    . Gadolinium contrast agents- challenges and opportunities of a multidisciplinary approach: literature review. Eur J Radiol Open 2023;11:100503 doi:10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100503 pmid:37456927

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Bi Q,
    3. Li H,
    4. Du J, et al

    . Gadolinium deposition in the brain is related to various contrast agents: a matched case–control study. Clin Radiol 2022;77:299–306 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2021.12.020 pmid:35094817

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Dogra S,
    3. Borja MJ,
    4. Lui YW

    . Impact of kidney function on CNS gadolinium deposition in patients receiving repeated doses of gadobutrol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:824–30 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7031 pmid:33632738

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Traboulsee S,
    3. Kolind DK,
    4. Li H, et al

    . Gadolinium deposition in deep brain structures: relationship with dose and ionization of linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1597–603 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5751 pmid:30139752

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Leray E,
    3. Moreau T,
    4. Fromont A, et al

    . Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2016;172:3–13 PMC]doi:10.1016/j.neurol.2015.10.006 pmid:26718593

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Chokshi FH,
    3. Sadigh G,
    4. Carpenter W, et al

    . Diagnostic quality of 3D T2-SPACE compared with T2-FSE in the evaluation of cervical spine MRI anatomy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:846–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5080 pmid:28154126

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Vargas MI,
    3. Dietemann JL

    . 3D T2-SPACE versus T2-FSE or T2 gradient recalled-echo: which is the best sequence? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:E48–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5190 pmid:28450429

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Castriota-Scanderbeg A,
    3. Sabatini U,
    4. Fasano F, et al

    . Diffusion of water in large demyelinating lesions: a follow-up study. Neuroradiology 2002;44:764–67 doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0806-y pmid:12221449

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Iannucci G,
    4. Cercignani M, et al

    . A quantitative study of water diffusion in multiple sclerosis lesions and normal-appearing white matter using echo-planar imaging. Arch Neurol 2000;57:1017–21 doi:10.1001/archneur.57.7.1017 pmid:10891984

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Tievsky AL,
    3. Ptak T,
    4. Farkas J

    . Investigation of apparent diffusion coefficient and diffusion tensor anisotropy in acute and chronic multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:1491–99 pmid:10512236

    PubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Haase S,
    3. Linker RA

    . Inflammation in multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2021;14:17562864211007687 doi:10.1177/17562864211007687 pmid:33948118

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Compston A,
    3. Coles A

    . Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2002;359:1221–31 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08220-X pmid:11955556

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Claudio L,
    3. Raine CS,
    4. Brosnan CF

    . Evidence of persistent blood-brain barrier abnormalities in chronic-progressive multiple sclerosis. Acta Neuropathol 1995;90:228–38 doi:10.1007/BF00296505 pmid:8525795

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Wenzel N,
    3. Wittayer M,
    4. Weber CE, et al

    . MRI predictors for the conversion from contrast-enhancing to iron rim multiple sclerosis lesions. J Neurol 2022;269:4414–20 doi:10.1007/s00415-022-11082-2 pmid:35332392

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Thomsen HS

    . Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: history and epidemiology. Radiology Clin North Am 2009;47:827–31, vi doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2009.05.003 pmid:19744597

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Thomsen HS,
    3. Morcos SK,
    4. Almén T, et al

    ; ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2013;23:307–18 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2597-9 pmid:22865271

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Laader A,
    3. Beiderwellen K,
    4. Kraff O, et al

    . 1.5 versus 3 versus 7 Tesla in abdominal MRI: A comparative study. PLoS One 2017;12:e0187528 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187528 pmid:29125850

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Kitley J,
    3. Waters P,
    4. Woodhall M, et al

    . Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders with aquaporin-4 and myelin-oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibodies: a comparative study. JAMA Neurol 2014;71:276–83 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.5857 pmid:24425068

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Gauthier SA,
    4. Gupta A, et al

    . Longitudinal change in magnetic susceptibility of new enhanced multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions measured on serial quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:426–32 doi:10.1002/jmri.25144 pmid:26800367

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Droogan AG,
    3. Clark CA,
    4. Werring DJ, et al

    . Comparison of multiple sclerosis clinical subgroups using navigated spin echo diffusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1999;17:653–61 doi:10.1016/s0730-725x(99)00011-9 pmid:10372518

    CrossRefPubMed