European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 915–921 | Cite as

FLAIR imaging for multiple sclerosis: a comparative MR study at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla

  • Rainald Bachmann
  • Ralf Reilmann
  • Wolfram Schwindt
  • Harald Kugel
  • Walter Heindel
  • Stefan Krämer


The purpose of this study was (1) to identify the optimal TE for FLAIR-imaging at 3.0 T assessing three different echo times qualitatively and quantitatively and (2) to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of high-field 3.0-T FLAIR imaging in comparison to conventional 1.5-T MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Twenty-two patients with clinically definite MS underwent axial FLAIR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T. In 15 of these patients further FLAIR images with a TE of 100, 120 and 140 ms were acquired at 3.0 T. Imaging protocols were modified for 3.0 T using the increased SNR to acquire more and thinner slices while maintaining a comparable scan time. FLAIR images of either different TEs or different field strengths were ranked for each patient qualitatively by two observers. Signal intensity measurements were obtained in the gray and white matter, CSF and representative white matter lesions (WML). At 3.0 T, a TE of 100 and 120 ms proved superior in all qualitative categories when compared to 140 ms. In the quantitative assessment CNR of WML was highest for 120 ms (CNR: 19.8), intermediate for 100 ms (17.2) and lowest for 140 ms (15.3) (P<0.003). For lesion conspicuity and overall image quality, 3.0 T was judged superior to 1.5 T, whereas no difference was found for gray-white differentiation and image noise. With regard to artifacts, 3.0 T was inferior to 1.5 T. The CNR for WML was slightly lower at 3.0 T, but the difference was not significant (22.6 vs. 28.0, P=ns). However, significantly more WML were detected at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T (483 vs. 341, P<0.0001). The optimal echo time for FLAIR imaging at 3.0 T is 120 ms due to the significantly higher CNR of WML. By trading the higher SNR at 3.0 T for better spatial resolution, nearly the same CNR level could be maintained, increasing lesion detectability at 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T. Thus, high-field MRI may further strengthen the role of MRI as the most sensitive paraclinical test for the early diagnosis of MS.


Magnetic resonance (MR) Comparative studies Magnetic resonance (MR) High-field-strength imaging Nervous system MR Sclerosis Multiple 


  1. 1.
    Tintore M, Rovira A, Rio J, Nos C, Grive E, Sastre-Garriga J, Pericot I, Sanchez E, Comabella M, Montalban X (2003) New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: application in first demyelinating episode. Neurology 60:27–30Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalton CM, Brex PA, Miszkiel KA, Fernando K, MacManus DG, Plant GT, Thompson AJ, Miller DH (2003) New T2 lesions enable an earlier diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in clinically isolated syndromes. Ann Neurol 53:673–676Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frohman EM, Goodin DS, Calabresi PA, Corboy JR, Coyle PK, Filippi M, Frank JA, Galetta SL, Grossman RI, Hawker K, Kachuck NJ, Levin MC, Phillips JT, Racke MK, Rivera VM, Stuart WH (2003) The utility of MRI in suspected MS: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 61:602–611Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pretorius PM, Quaghebeur G (2003) The role of MRI in the diagnosis of MS. Clin Radiol 58:434–448Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwindt W, Kugel H, Bachmann R, Kloska S, Allkemper T, Maintz D, Pfleiderer B, Tombach B, Heindel W (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for examination of the neurocranium at 3 T. Eur Radiol 13:2170–2179. Epub 2003 Jul 5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frayne R, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, Lauzon ML, Sevick RJ (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol 38:385–402Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takahashi M, Uematsu H, Hatabu H (2003) MR imaging at high magnetic fields. Eur J Radiol 46:45–52Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sicotte NL, Voskuhl RR, Bouvier S, Klutch R, Cohen MS, Mazziotta JC (2003) Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 38:423–427Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keiper MD, Grossman RI, Hirsch JA, Bolinger L, Ott IL, Mannon LJ, Langlotz CP, Kolson DL (1998) MR identification of white matter abnormalities in multiple sclerosis: a comparison between 1.5 T and 4 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 19:1489–1493Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bakshi R, Ariyaratana S, Benedict RH, Jacobs L (2001) Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging detects cortical and juxtacortical multiple sclerosis lesions. Arch Neurol 58:742–748Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gawne-Cain ML, O’Riordan JI, Thompson AJ, Moseley IF, Miller DH, Filippi M, Rocca MA, Wiessmann M, Mennea S, Cercignani M, Yousry TA, Sormani MP, Comi G (1997) Multiple sclerosis lesion detection in the brain: a comparison of fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and conventional T2-weighted dual spin echo. Neurology 49:364–370Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tubridy N, Barker GJ, MacManus DG, Moseley IF, Miller DH, Filippi M, Rocca MA, Wiessmann M, Mennea S, Cercignani M, Yousry TA, Sormani MP, Comi G (1998) Optimisation of unenhanced MRI for detection of lesions in multiple sclerosis: a comparison of five pulse sequences with variable slice thickness. Neuroradiology 40:293–297Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33:1444–1452Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lublin FD, Reingold SC (1996) Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology 46:907–911Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rydberg JN, Riederer SJ, Rydberg CH, Jack CR, Frayne R, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, Lauzon ML, Sevick RJ (1995) Contrast optimization of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging. Magn Reson Med 34:868–877Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaufman L, Kramer DM, Crooks LE, Ortendahl DA, Hori M, Okubo T, Uozumi K, Ishigame K, Kumagai H, Araki T (1989) Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. Radiology 173:265–267Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Molyneux PD, Tubridy N, Parker GJ, Barker GJ, MacManus DG, Tofts PS, Moseley IF, Miller DH, Provenzale JM, MacFall JR (1998) The effect of section thickness on MR lesion detection and quantification in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 19:1715–1720Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wansapura JP, Holland SK, Dunn RS, Ball WS, Jr (1999) NMR relaxation times in the human brain at 3.0 tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:531–538Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jack CR, Jr, Berquist TH, Miller GM, Forbes GS, Gray JE, Morin RL, Ilstrup DM (1990) Field strength in neuro-MR imaging: a comparison of 0.5 T and 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 14:505–513Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee DH, Vellet AD, Eliasziw M, Vidito L, Ebers GC, Rice GP, Hewett L, Dunlavy S (1995) MR imaging field strength: prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Radiology 194:257–262Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naganawa S, Koshikawa T, Nakamura T, Kawai H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T, Komada T, Maruyama K, Takizawa O (2004) Comparison of flow artifacts between 2D-FLAIR and 3D-FLAIR sequences at 3 T. Eur Radiol 14:1901–198Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu HM, Yousem DM, Chung HW, Guo WY, Chang CY, Chen CY (2002) Influence of imaging parameters on high-intensity cerebrospinal fluid artifacts in fast-FLAIR MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 23:393–399Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bakshi R, Caruthers SD, Janardhan V, Wasay M (2000) Intraventricular CSF pulsation artifact on fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery MR images: analysis of 100 consecutive normal studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:503–508Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hajnal JV, Oatridge A, Herlihy AH, Bydder GM (2001) Reduction of CSF artifacts on FLAIR images by using adiabatic inversion pulses. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22:317–322Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kallmes DF, Hui FK, Mugler JP, 3rd, Bakshi R, Caruthers SD, Janardhan V, Wasay M (2001) Suppression of cerebrospinal fluid and blood flow artifacts in FLAIR MR imaging with a single-slab three-dimensional pulse sequence: initial experience. Radiology 221:251–255Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hashemi RH, Bradley WG, Jr, Chen DY, Jordan JE, Queralt JA, Cheng AE, Henrie JN (1995) Suspected multiple sclerosis: MR imaging with a thin-section fast FLAIR pulse sequence. Radiology 196:505–510Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Comi G, Filippi M, Barkhof F, Durelli L, Edan G, Fernandez O, Hartung H, Seeldrayers P, Sorensen PS, Rovaris M, Martinelli V, Hommes OR (2001) Effect of early interferon treatment on conversion to definite multiple sclerosis: a randomised study. Lancet 357:1576-1582Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jacobs LD, Beck RW, Simon JH, Kinkel RP, Brownscheidle CM, Murray TJ, Simonian NA, Slasor PJ, Sandrock AW (2000) Intramuscular interferon beta-1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis. CHAMPS Study Group. N Engl J Med 343:898–904Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainald Bachmann
    • 1
  • Ralf Reilmann
    • 2
  • Wolfram Schwindt
    • 1
  • Harald Kugel
    • 1
  • Walter Heindel
    • 1
  • Stefan Krämer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations