Trending Topic

4 mins

Trending Topic

Developed by Touch
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked

Welcome to this issue of touchREVIEWS in Neurology, where we explore significant advances in neurology, cognitive health, and wearable technology in the management of various chronic conditions. This issue brings together a collection of expert perspectives and research that spans innovative therapies, preventive strategies, and case studies, each offering critical insights for clinicians and researchers. […]

Role of Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis

Àlex Rovira, Cristina Auger
Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Published Online: Jun 27th 2012 European Neurological Review, 2012;7(3):181-8 DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/ENR.2012.07.03.181
Select a Section…
1

Abstract

Overview

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important diagnostic tool in different central nervous system (CNS) disorders including brain cancer and cerebrovascular, inflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases. The most commonly used MRI contrast agents are gadolinium-based compounds that have been successfully employed in combination with T1-weighted sequences to detect and monitor focal disease-related abnormalities. These gadolinium-based contrast agents facilitate the visualisation of areas of blood brain barrier disruption, show good performance in diagnostic procedures and present a favourable safety profile. In multiple sclerosis (MS), conventional MRI, including T2-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted sequences, is pivotal to diagnose and to monitor disease activity and progression. Advanced magnetic resonance (MR) techniques and new contrast agents are currently being developed to improve the ability to identify CNS structural and functional abnormalities in MS, which may better correlate with and predict the clinical course of the disease.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), gadolinium-based contrast agents, multiple sclerosis (MS)

2

Article

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis
Since its introduction to medical practice in the 1980s, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an indispensable imaging technique. It exploits differences in relaxation times (T1 and T2) between nuclei that have an odd number of nucleons (protons and neutrons) – usually hydrogen protons from water molecules present in bodily tissues. When these nuclei are subjected to a homogeneous magnetic field and stimulated by radiofrequency pulses they return to an equilibrium state at different relaxation rates generating variable resonance signals. Differences between water-containing tissues affect the relaxation rates and allow the generation of an image revealing structural differences within these tissues. Initially used for chemical and physical analyses, it rapidly evolved into a fundamental medical imaging procedure that revealed to be particularly useful in the detection of lesions of the central nervous system (CNS).1 This high-resolution technique allows detection of focal and diffuse abnormalities in the white and grey matter and has become an established tool in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) at clinical centres worldwide. It has also proved valuable in monitoring disease activity and progression, and treatment response in the research setting.2

Gadolinium-based compounds markedly decrease the T1 relaxation time of adjacent mobile water protons. As a result, after intravenous gadolinium administration, there is a locally increased signal on T1-weighted images from CNS tissues where, normally, there is no blood brain barrier (e.g., the circumventricular organs, meninges and choroid plexus) or where it is abnormally compromised or even absent. Thisoccurs in many types of tumoural, inflammatory and infective lesions.

Longitudinal and cross-sectional magnetic resonance (MR) studies have shown that contrast-enhancement occurs in almost all new MS plaques in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) or secondary progressive MS (SPMS). This enhancement correlates with altered blood brain barrier permeability in the setting of acute perivascular inflammation, discriminating acute active from chronic inactive lesions (see Figure 1). The gadolinium enhancement varies in size and shape, and usually lasts from a few days to weeks with an average duration of three weeks. New contrast-enhancing lesions are nearly always associated with a hyperintense lesion in the samelocation on T2-weighted images. The extent of these new T2 lesions usually contract over time (three–five months) and their intensity is reduced as oedema resolves and some tissue repair occurs, leaving a much smaller T2 permanent ‘footprint’ of the prior inflammatory event (see Figure 2).

To view the full article in PDF or eBook formats, please click on the icons above.

2

References

  1. Huk WJ, Gademann G, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI):
    method and early clinical experiences in diseases of the
    central nervous system, Neurosurg Rev, 1984;7:259–80.

  2. Filippi M, Rocca MA, MR imaging of multiple sclerosis,
    Radiology, 2011;259:659–81.

  3. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al., Recommended
    diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the
    International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis,
    Ann Neurol, 2001;50:121–7.

  4. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, et al., Diagnostic criteria
    for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald
    Criteria”, Ann Neurol, 2005;58:840–6.

  5. Rovira A, Swanton J, Tintore M, et al., A single, early
    magnetic resonance imaging study in the diagnosis of
    multiple sclerosis, Arch Neurol, 2009;66:587–92.

  6. Swanton JK, Fernando K, Dalton CM, et al., Modification of
    MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis in patients with clinically
    isolated syndromes, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2006;77:830–3.

  7. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al., Diagnostic
    criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the
    McDonald criteria, Ann Neurol, 2011;69:292–302.

  8. Kornek B, Schmitl B, Vass K, et al., Evaluation of the 2010
    McDonald multiple sclerosis criteria in children with a
    clinically isolated syndrome, Mult Scler, 2012;
    [Epub ahead of print].

  9. Sedani S, Lim M, Hemingway C, et al., Paediatric multiple
    sclerosis: examining utility of the McDonald 2010 criteria,
    Mult Scler, 2012;18:679–82.

  10. Barkhof F, Simon JH, Fazekas F, et al., MRI monitoring of
    immunomodulation in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis
    trials, Nat Rev Neurol, 2011;8:13–21.

  11. Lovblad KO, Anzalone N, Dorfler A, et al., MR imaging in
    multiple sclerosis: review and recommendations for current
    practice, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2010;31:983–9.

  12. Miller DH, Guidelines for MRI monitoring of the treatment of
    multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the US Multiple
    Sclerosis Society’s task force, Mult Scler, 1996;1:335–8.

  13. Rio J, Rovira A, Tintore M, et al., Relationship between MRI
    lesion activity and response to IFN-beta in relapsing-remitting
    multiple sclerosis patients, Mult Scler, 2008;14:479–84.

  14. Rudick RA, Lee JC, Simon J, et al., Defining interferon beta
    response status in multiple sclerosis patients, Ann Neurol,
    2004;56:548–55.

  15. Fisniku LK, Brex PA, Altmann DR, et al., Disability and T2
    MRI lesions: a 20-year follow-up of patients with relapse
    onset of multiple sclerosis, Brain, 2008;131:808–17.

  16. Bodini B, Battaglini M, De Stefano N, et al., T2 lesion
    location really matters: a 10 year follow-up study in primary
    progressive multiple sclerosis, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry,
    2011;82:72–7.

  17. Giesel FL, Mehndiratta A, Essig M, High-relaxivity contrastenhanced
    magnetic resonance neuroimaging: a review,
    Eur Radiol, 2010;20:2461–74.

  18. Rio J, Comabella M, Montalban X, Predicting responders
    to therapies for multiple sclerosis, Nat Rev Neurol,
    2009;5:553–60.

  19. Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, et al., Stability of
    gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast
    agents in human serum at 37 degrees C, Invest Radiol,
    2008;43:817–28.

  20. van der Molen AJ, Bellin MF, Extracellular gadolinium-based
    contrast media: differences in diagnostic efficacy,
    Eur J Radiol, 2008;66:168–74.

  21. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, et al., Comparison of
    magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at
    different magnetic field strengths, Invest Radiol,
    2005;40:715-24.

  22. Silver NC, Good CD, Barker GJ, et al., Sensitivity of contrast
    enhanced MRI in multiple sclerosis. Effects of gadolinium
    dose, magnetization transfer contrast and delayed imaging,
    Brain, 1997;120:1149–61.

  23. Sieber MA, Lengsfeld P, Frenzel T, et al., Preclinical
    investigation to compare different gadolinium-based contrast
    agents regarding their propensity to release gadolinium in
    vivo and to trigger nephrogenic systemic fibrosis-like lesions,
    Eur Radiol, 2008;18:2164–73.

  24. Hellman RN, Gadolinium-induced nephrogenic systemic
    fibrosis, Semin Nephrol, 2011;31:310–6.

  25. Zou Z, Zhang HL, Roditi GH, et al., Nephrogenic systemic
    fibrosis: review of 370 biopsy-confirmed cases, JACC
    Cardiovasc Imaging, 2011;4:1206–16.

  26. European Medicines Agency, European Medicines Agency
    makes recommendations to minimise risk of nephrogenic
    systemic fibrosis with gadolinium-containing contrast
    agents. Available at www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?
    curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2009/11/news_
    detail_000408.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1
    (accessed 10 Aug 2012).

  27. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almen T, et al., Nephrogenic
    systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media:
    updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee
    guidelines, Eur Radiol, 2012;[Epub ahead of print].

  28. Forsting M, Palkowitsch P, Prevalence of acute adverse
    reactions to gadobutrol–a highly concentrated macrocyclic
    gadolinium chelate: review of 14,299 patients from
    observational trials, Eur J Radiol, 2010;74:e186–92.

  29. Hahn G, Sorge I, Gruhn B, et al., Pharmacokinetics and
    safety of gadobutrol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging
    in pediatric patients, Invest Radiol, 2009;44:776–83.

  30. Voth M, Rosenberg M, Breuer J, Safety of gadobutrol, a
    new generation of contrast agents: experience from
    clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance, Invest Radiol,
    2011;46:663–71.

  31. Anzalone N, Scarabino T, Venturi C, et al., Cerebral
    neoplastic enhancing lesions: Multicenter, randomized,
    crossover intraindividual comparison between gadobutrol
    (1.0M) and gadoterate meglumine (0.5M) at 0.1mmolGd/kg
    body weight in a clinical setting, Eur J Radiol, 2011;
    [Epub ahead of print].

  32. Kim ES, Chang JH, Choi HS, et al., Diagnostic yield of
    double-dose gadobutrol in the detection of brain
    metastasis: intraindividual comparison with double-dose
    gadopentetate dimeglumine, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol,
    2010;31:1055–8.

  33. Katakami N, Inaba Y, Sugata S, et al., Magnetic resonance
    evaluation of brain metastases from systemic malignances
    with two doses of gadobutrol 1.0 m compared with
    gadoteridol: a multicenter, phase ii/iii study in patients with
    known or suspected brain metastases, Invest Radiol,
    2011;46:411–8.

  34. Seidl Z, Vymazal J, Mechl M, et al., Does higher gadolinium
    concentration play a role in the morphologic assessment of
    brain tumors? Results of a multicenter intraindividual
    crossover comparison of gadobutrol versus gadobenate
    dimeglumine (the MERIT Study), AJNR Am J Neuroradiol,
    2012; 33:1050–8.

  35. Rovira A, Auger C, Corral F, et al., MR Imaging in clinically
    isolated syndromes and relapsing multiple sclerosis after
    single-dose and cumulative double-dose gadobutrol at
    3.0 T: interim analysis, 50th Annual Meeting of the
    American Society of Neuroradiology, 2012;0–128:P71.

  36. Wessig C, Bendszus M, Stoll G, In vivo visualization of
    focal demyelination in peripheral nerves by gadofluorine
    M-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, Exp Neurol,
    2007;204:14–9.

  37. Bendszus M, Ladewig G, Jestaedt L, et al., Gadofluorine M
    enhancement allows more sensitive detection of
    inflammatory CNS lesions than T2-w imaging: a quantitative
    MRI study, Brain, 2008;131:2341–52.

  38. Wuerfel E, Infante-Duarte C, Glumm R, et al., Gadofluorine
    M-enhanced MRI shows involvement of circumventricular
    organs in neuroinflammation, J Neuroinflammation, 2010;7:70.

  39. Frullano L, Zhu J, Wang C, et al., Myelin imaging compound
    (MIC) enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of
    myelination, J Med Chem, 2012;55:94–105.

  40. Dousset V, Ballarino L, Delalande C, et al., Comparison
    of ultrasmall particles of iron oxide (USPIO)-enhanced
    T2-weighted, conventional T2-weighted, and gadoliniumenhanced
    T1-weighted MR images in rats with experimental
    autoimmune encephalomyelitis, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol,
    1999;20:223–7.

  41. Floris S, Blezer EL, Schreibelt G, et al., Blood-brain barrier
    permeability and monocyte infiltration in experimental
    allergic encephalomyelitis: a quantitative MRI study, Brain,
    2004;127:616–27.

  42. Rausch M, Hiestand P, Baumann D, et al., MRI-based
    monitoring of inflammation and tissue damage in
    acute and chronic relapsing EAE, Magn Reson Med,
    2003;50:309–14.

  43. Vellinga MM, Vrenken H, Hulst HE, et al., Use of ultrasmall
    superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide (USPIO)-enhanced
    MRI to demonstrate diffuse inflammation in the normalappearing
    white matter (NAWM) of multiple sclerosis (MS)
    patients: an exploratory study, J Magn Reson Imaging,
    2009;29:774–9.

  44. Filippi M, Rocca MA, Barkhof F, et al., Association between
    pathological and MRI findings in multiple sclerosis, Lancet
    Neurol, 2012;11:349–60.

  45. Dousset V, Brochet B, Deloire MS, et al., MR imaging of
    relapsing multiple sclerosis patients using ultra-smallparticle
    iron oxide and compared with gadolinium,
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2006;27:1000–5.

  46. Serres S, Mardiguian S, Campbell SJ, et al., VCAM-1-
    targeted magnetic resonance imaging reveals subclinical disease in a mouse model of multiple sclerosis, FASEB J,
    2011;25:4415–22.

  47. Luchetti A, Milani D, Ruffini F, et al., Monoclonal antibodies
    conjugated with superparamagnetic iron oxide particles
    allow magnetic resonance imaging detection of
    lymphocytes in the mouse brain, Mol Imaging,
    2012;11:114–25.

  48. Chen JW, Breckwoldt MO, Aikawa E, et al., Myeloperoxidasetargeted
    imaging of active inflammatory lesions in murine
    experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, Brain,
    2008;131:1123–33.

  49. Suzuki M, Kudo K, Sasaki M, et al., Detection of active
    plaques in multiple sclerosis using susceptibility-weighted
    imaging: comparison with gadolinium-enhanced MR
    imaging, Magn Reson Med Sci, 2011;10:185–92.

  50. Calabrese M, Filippi M, Gallo P, Cortical lesions in multiple
    sclerosis, Nat Rev Neurol, 2010;6:438–44.

  51. Deloire-Grassin MS, Brochet B, Quesson B, et al., In vivo
    evaluation of remyelination in rat brain by magnetization
    transfer imaging, J Neurol Sci, 2000;178:10–6.

  52. Bagnato F, Hametner S, Yao B, et al., Tracking iron in
    multiple sclerosis: a combined imaging and
    histopathological study at 7 Tesla, Brain, 2011;134:3602–15.

  53. Hammond KE, Metcalf M, Carvajal L, et al., Quantitative
    in vivo magnetic resonance imaging of multiple sclerosis
    at 7 Tesla with sensitivity to iron, Ann Neurol,
    2008;64:707–13.

  54. Ropele S, de Graaf W, Khalil M, et al., MRI assessment of
    iron deposition in multiple sclerosis, J Magn Reson Imaging,
    2011;34:13–21.

  55. Mainero C, Benner T, Radding A, et al., In vivo imaging of
    cortical pathology in multiple sclerosis using ultra-high field
    MRI, Neurology, 2009;73:941–8.

  56. Sardanelli F, Iozzelli A, Losacco C, et al., Three subsequent
    single doses of gadolinium chelate for brain MR imaging in
    multiple sclerosis, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2003;24:658–62.

  57. Wolansky LJ, Bardini JA, Cook SD, et al., Triple-dose versus
    single-dose gadoteridol in multiple sclerosis patients,
    J Neuroimaging, 1994;4:141–5.

  58. Livshits I, Hussein S, Kennedy C, et al., Comparison of a
    1.5T standard vs. 3T optimized protocols in multiple
    sclerosis patients, Minerva Med, 2012;103:97–102.

  59. Ladd ME, High-field-strength magnetic resonance: potential
    and limits, Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2007;18:139–52.

  60. Lunde Larsen LS, Larsson HB, Frederiksen JL, The value of
    conventional high-field MRI in MS in the light of the
    McDonald criteria: a literature review, Acta Neurol Scand,
    2010;122:149–58.

  61. Oguz KK, Kurne A, Aksu AO, et al., Assessment of
    citrullinated myelin by 1H-MR spectroscopy in
    early-onset multiple sclerosis, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol,
    2009;30:716–21.

  62. Srinivasan R, Ratiney H, Hammond-Rosenbluth KE, et al., MR
    spectroscopic imaging of glutathione in the white and gray
    matter at 7 T with an application to multiple sclerosis,
    Magn Reson Imaging, 2009;28:163–70.

  63. Fuchs VR, Sox HC, Jr., Physicians’ views of the relative
    importance of thirty medical innovations, Health Aff (Millwood),
    2001;20:30–42.

  64. Runge V, Contrast Agents: Safety Profile, (eds.), Clinical MRI
    (2012), www.Clinical-MRI.com.

  65. Sardanelli F, Losacco 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;12:2077–82.

  66. Liao CD, Zhang F, Guo RM, et al., Peripheral nerve repair:
    monitoring by using gadofluorine M-enhanced MR imaging
    with chitosan nerve conduits with cultured mesenchymal
    stem cells in rat model of neurotmesis, Radiology,
    2012;262:161–71.

  67. Adler ED, Bystrup A, Briley-Saebo KC, et al., In vivo
    detection of embryonic stem cell-derived cardiovascular
    progenitor cells using Cy3-labeled Gadofluorine M in murine
    myocardium, JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2009;2:1114–22.

  68. Misselwitz B, Platzek J, Weinmann HJ, Early MR
    lymphography with gadofluorine M in rabbits, Radiology,
    2004;231:682–8.

  69. Cotton F, Hermier M, The advantage of high relaxivity
    contrast agents in brain perfusion, Eur Radiol, 2006;
    16 (Suppl. 7):M16–26.

  70. Algin O, Hakyemez B, Taskapilioglu O, et al., Imaging of
    active multiple sclerosis plaques: efficiency of contrastenhanced
    magnetization transfer subtraction technique,
    Diagn Interv Radiol, 2010;16:106–11.

  71. Khaleeli Z, Ciccarelli O, Mizskiel K, et al., Lesion
    enhancement diminishes with time in primary progressive
    multiple sclerosis, Mult Scler, 2010;16:317–24.

  72. Myhr KM, Riise T, Green Lilleas FE, et al., Interferon-alpha2a
    reduces MRI disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple
    sclerosis. Norwegian Study Group on Interferon-alpha in
    Multiple Sclerosis, Neurology, 1999;52:1049–56.

  73. Anderson SA, Shukaliak-Quandt J, Jordan EK, et al.,
    Magnetic resonance imaging of labeled T-cells in a
    mouse model of multiple sclerosis, Ann Neurol,
    2004;55:654–9.

  74. Engberink RD, van der Pol SM, Walczak P, et al., Magnetic
    resonance imaging of monocytes labeled with ultrasmall
    superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide using
    magnetoelectroporation in an animal model of multiple
    sclerosis, Mol Imaging, 2010;9:268–77.

  75. Muja N, Cohen ME, Zhang J, et al., Neural precursors exhibit
    distinctly different patterns of cell migration upon
    transplantation during either the acute or chronic phase of
    EAE: a serial MR imaging study, Magn Reson Med,
    2011;65:1738–49.

  76. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
    Manganese-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in
    Healthy Volunteers and People With Multiple Sclerosis.
    Available at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326715.
    Accessed: 8 Aug 2012, 2012.

  77. Vellinga MM, Oude Engberink RD, Seewann A, et al.,
    Pluriformity of inflammation in multiple sclerosis shown by
    ultra-small iron oxide particle enhancement, Brain,
    2008;131:800–7.

3

Article Information

Disclosure

Àlex Rovira serves on scientific advisory boards for NeuroTEC, Bayer-Schering Pharma and BTG International Ltd. and on the editorial board of the American Journal of Neuroradiology and Neuroradiology. He has received speaker honoraria from Bayer-Schering Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Bracco, Merck-Serono, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Biogen Idec, receives research support from Bayer-Schering Pharma and serves as a consultant for Novartis. Cristina Auger has received speaker honoraria from Merck-Serono and Novartis.

Correspondence

Àlex Rovira, Magnetic Resonance Unit (IDI), Department of Radiology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital (Soterrani-1), Passeig Vall d’Hebron 119–129, 08035 Barcelona, Spain. E: alex.rovira@idi-cat.org

Support

The publication of this article was funded by Bayer. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Bayer.

Received

2012-09-03T00:00:00

4

Further Resources

Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Close Popup