A comparison of phase imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping in the imaging of multiple sclerosis lesions at ultrahigh field

41Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the use of high-resolution phase and QSM images acquired at ultra-high field in the investigation of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions with peripheral rings, and to discuss their usefulness for drawing inferences about underlying tissue composition. Materials and methods: Thirty-nine Subjects were scanned at 7 T, using 3D T2*-weighted and T1-weighted sequences. Phase images were then unwrapped and filtered, and quantitative susceptibility maps were generated using a thresholded k-space division method. Lesions were compared visually and using a 1D profiling algorithm. Results: Lesions displaying peripheral rings in the phase images were identified in 10 of the 39 subjects. Dipolar projections were apparent in the phase images outside of the extent of several of these lesions; however, QSM images showed peripheral rings without such projections. These projections appeared ring-like in a small number of phase images where no ring was observed in QSM. 1D profiles of six well-isolated example lesions showed that QSM contrast corresponds more closely to the magnitude images than phase contrast. Conclusions: Phase images contain dipolar projections, which confounds their use in the investigation of tissue composition in MS lesions. Quantitative susceptibility maps correct these projections, providing insight into the composition of MS lesions showing peripheral rings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cronin, M. J., Wharton, S., Al-Radaideh, A., Constantinescu, C., Evangelou, N., Bowtell, R., & Gowland, P. A. (2016). A comparison of phase imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping in the imaging of multiple sclerosis lesions at ultrahigh field. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 29(3), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0560-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free