Pre- and Postcontrast 3D Double Inversion Recovery Sequence in Multiple Sclerosis: A Simple and Effective MR Imaging Protocol

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Redpath TW,
   3. Smith FW

   . Imaging gray brain matter with a double-inversion pulse sequence to suppress CSF and white matter signals. MAGMA 1994;2:451–55 doi:10.1007/BF01705296

   CrossRef
2. 2.↵
   2. Redpath TW,
   3. Smith FW

   . Technical note: use of a double inversion recovery pulse sequence to image selectively grey or white brain matter. Br J Radiol 1994;67:1258–63 doi:10.1259/0007-1285-67-804-1258 pmid:7874427

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Vural G,
   3. Keklikoğlu HD,
   4. Temel Ş, et al

   . Comparison of double inversion recovery and conventional magnetic resonance brain imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis and relations with disease disability. Neuroradiol J 2013;26:133–42 doi:10.1177/197140091302600201 pmid:23859234

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Wattjes MP,
   3. Lutterbey GG,
   4. Gieseke J, et al

   . Double inversion recovery brain imaging at 3T: diagnostic value in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:54–59 pmid:17213424

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Seewann A,
   3. Kooi EJ,
   4. Roosendaal SD, et al

   . Postmortem verification of MS cortical lesion detection with 3D DIR. Neurology 2012;78:302–08 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31824528a0 pmid:22218278

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Geurts JJ,
   3. Pouwels PJ,
   4. Uitdehaag BM, et al

   . Intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis: improved detection with 3D double inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 2005;236:254–60 doi:10.1148/radiol.2361040450 pmid:15987979

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Calabrese M,
   3. De Stefano N,
   4. Atzori M, et al

   . Detection of cortical inflammatory lesions by double inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2007;64:1416–22 doi:10.1001/archneur.64.10.1416 pmid:17923625

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Simon B,
   3. Schmidt S,
   4. Lukas C, et al

   . Improved in vivo detection of cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis using double inversion recovery MR imaging at 3 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1675–83 doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1705-y pmid:20094887

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Riederer I,
   3. Karampinos DC,
   4. Settles M, et al

   . Double inversion recovery sequence of the cervical spinal cord in multiple sclerosis and related inflammatory diseases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:219–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4093 pmid:25169924

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Polman CH,
    3. Reingold SC,
    4. Banwell B, et al

    . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302 doi:10.1002/ana.22366 pmid:21387374

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Rocca MA,
    4. Ciccarelli O, et al

    ; MAGNIMS Study Group. MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines. Lancet Neurol 2016;15:292–303 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00393-2 pmid:26822746

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Uysal E,
    3. Erturk SM,
    4. Yildirim H, et al

    . Sensitivity of immediate and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI after injection of 0.5 M and 1.0 M gadolinium chelates for detecting multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:697–702 doi:10.2214/AJR.05.2212 pmid:17312056

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Bonzano L,
    3. Roccatagliata L,
    4. Levrero F, et al

    . In vitro investigation of poor cerebrospinal fluid suppression on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images in the presence of a gadolinium-based contrast agent. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:220–23 doi:10.1002/mrm.21619 pmid:18581384

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Mathews VP,
    3. Caldemeyer KS,
    4. Lowe MJ, et al

    . Brain: gadolinium-enhanced fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 1999;211:257–63 doi:10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99mr25257 pmid:10189481

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Harris RJ,
    3. Cloughesy TF,
    4. Pope WB, et al

    . Pre- and post-contrast three-dimensional double inversion-recovery MRI in human glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2013;112:257–66 doi:10.1007/s11060-013-1057-y pmid:23344788

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Hodel J,
    3. Badr S,
    4. Outteryck O, et al

    . Altered signal intensity of active enhancing inflammatory lesions using post-contrast double inversion recovery MR sequence. Eur Radiol 2017;27:637–41 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4416-1 pmid:27229340

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Yushkevich PA,
    3. Piven J,
    4. Hazlett HC, et al

    . User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116–28 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 pmid:16545965

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Eisele P,
    3. Griebe M,
    4. Szabo K, et al

    . Investigation of leptomeningeal enhancement in MS: a postcontrast FLAIR MRI study. Neurology 2015;84:770–75 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001286 pmid:25616480

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Khangure SR,
    3. Khangure MS

    . MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: the accuracy of 3D double inversion recovery at 3 Tesla and the potential for single sequence imaging. Neuroradiol J 2011;24:92–99 doi:10.1177/197140091102400114 pmid:24059576

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. De Stefano N,
    3. Stromillo ML,
    4. Giorgio A, et al

    . Establishing pathological cut-offs of brain atrophy rates in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87:93–99 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-309903 pmid:25904813

    Abstract/FREE Full Text