Multiple Sclerosis
Read Time: 2 mins

Role of Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis

Copy Link
Published Online: Jun 27th 2012 European Neurological Review, 2012;7(3):181-8 DOI:
Authors: Àlex Rovira, Cristina Auger
Quick Links:
Article Information

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.


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


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.

Article Information:

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.


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:


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.




  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 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),
  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 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.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Multiple Sclerosis
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-down-editablearrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-red tick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Sponsored Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72