Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2005 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3

The effectiveness of magnetization transfer technique in the evaluation of acute plaques in the central nervous system of multiple sclerosis patients and its correlation with the clinical findings

Pages
137–141
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

They also offer a more effective evaluation of the acute plaques that cause clinical findings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE To determine the value of magnetization transfer (MT) imaging in the evaluation of acute plaques, which cause clinical findings in the brain magnetic resonance (MR) images of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and its correlation with the clinical findings.
📊
Key Findings & Data:They were being followed-up for the diagnosis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis based on McDonald’s criteria.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:They also offer a more effective evaluation of the acute plaques that cause clinical findings.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Duyarlılık ve özgüllük · Hastalık ciddiyet indeksi · Multipl skleroz

Abstract

PURPOSE To determine the value of magnetization transfer (MT) imaging in the evaluation of acute plaques, which cause clinical findings in the brain magnetic resonance (MR) images of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and its correlation with the clinical findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were included in the study. They were being followed-up for the diagnosis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis based on McDonald’s criteria. To evaluate the acute plaques of the patients, their T1- weighted spin echo sequences were divided into 3 groups: precontrast and postcontrast MT images (group 1), postcontrast MT images only (group 2), and precontrast and postcontrast non-MT images (group 3). The sensitivity and positive predictive values were calculated to determine the correlation between the patients considered to have had attacks and the acute plaques detected during MR imaging examinations with T1-weighted spin echo. RESULTS After clinical examinations, in 25 of 40 patients (62.5%), there were neurological findings suggesting acute attacks. Among the 3 imaging groups, there was a significant difference in the number of acute plaques. In group 1 there were a total 30 findings suggesting acute plaques; in group 2 33; and in group 3 there were 20. When the correlation between the patients who were considered to have had attacks after their clinical examinations and the acute plaques detected with T1- weighted spin echo examinations were evaluated, the sensitivity and positive predictive values were 97% and 100% in group 1, 87% and 78% in group 2, and 65% and 100% in group 3, respectively. CONCLUSION In MS, T1-weighted MT examinations yield more reliable results for following up the treatment and changes in the development of the disease. They also offer a more effective evaluation of the acute plaques that cause clinical findings.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATALAY, K., DİREN, H. B., GELMEZ, S., İNCESU, L., TERZİ, M. (2005). The effectiveness of magnetization transfer technique in the evaluation of acute plaques in the central nervous system of multiple sclerosis patients and its correlation with the clinical findings. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3, 137–141. https://ajindex.com/articles/214148

References (14)

  1. Pretorius PM, Quaghebeur G. The role of MRI in the diagnosis of MS. Clin Radiol 2003; 58:434-448
  2. Gavra MM, Voumvourakis C, Gouliamos AD, Sfagos C, Vlahos LJ. Brain MR postgadolinium contrast in multiple sclerosis: the role of magnetization transfer and image substraction in detecting more enhancing lesions. Neuroradiology 2004; 46:205-210
  3. Sardanelli F, Losascco C, Iozzelli A, et al. Evaluation of Gd-enhancement in brain MR of multiple sclerosis: image subtraction with and without magnetization transfer. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:207-208
  4. Mc Donald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from to international panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001; 50:121-127
  5. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis. An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33:1444-1452
  6. Zivadinov R, Bakshi R. Role of MRI in multiple sclerosis I: inflammation and lesions. Front Biosci 2004; 1:665-683
  7. Miller DH, Albert PS, Barkhof F. Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance techniques in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1996; 39:6-16
  8. Molyneux PD, Tofts PS, Fletcher A. Precision and reliability for measurement of change in MRI lesion volume in multiple sclerosis: a comparison of two computer assisted techniques. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998; 65:42-47
  9. Runge VM, Kirsch E, Thomas GS. High dose application of gadolinium chelates in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 1991; 22:358-363 10. Huot P, Dousset V, Hatier E, Degreze P, Carlier P, Caille JM. Improvement of post-gadolinium contrast with magnetization transfer. Eur Radiol 1997; 7 Suppl 5:174-177
  10. Filippi M, Carpa R, Campi A. Triple dose of gadolinium-DTPA and delayed MRI in patients with benign multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996; 60:526-530
  11. Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Rovaris M, et al. Intraobserver variability in schemes for estimating volume of brain lesions on MR images in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998; 19:239-244
  12. Finelli DA, Hurst GC, Gullapali RP, Bellon EM. Improved contrast of enhancing brain lesions on postgadolinium. T1-weighted spin-echo images with use of magnetization transfer. Radiology 1994; 190:553-559
  13. Rovaris M, Filippi M. Magnetization transfer imaging. J Neurol Sci 2000; 172:3-12
  14. Petrella J, Grossman R, McGowan J, Campbell G, Cohen J. Multiple sclerosis lesions: relationship b