European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 1104–1110 | Cite as

Detection of lesions in multiple sclerosis by 2D FLAIR and single-slab 3D FLAIR sequences at 3.0 T: initial results

  • Andrea BinkEmail author
  • Melanie Schmitt
  • Jochen Gaa
  • John P. Mugler3rd
  • Heinrich Lanfermann
  • Friedhelm E. Zanella


The aim of this study was to compare conventional 2D FLAIR and single-slab 3D FLAIR sequences in the detection of lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. Eight patients with MS were examined at 3.0 T by using a 2D FLAIR sequence and a single-slab 3D FLAIR sequence. A comparison of lesion detectability was performed for the following regions: periventricular, nonperiventricular/juxtacortical and infratentorial. The contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) between lesions and brain tissue and CSF were calculated for each sequence. A total of 424 lesions were found using the 2D FLAIR sequence, while with the 3D FLAIR sequence 719 lesions were found. With the 2D FLAIR sequence, 41% fewer lesions were detected than with the 3D FLAIR sequence. Further, 40% fewer supratentorial and 62.5% fewer infratentorial lesions were found with the 2D FLAIR sequence. In images acquired with the 3D FLAIR sequence, the lesions had significantly higher CNRs than in images acquired with the 2D FLAIR sequence. These are the first results using a single-slab 3D FLAIR sequence at 3.0 T for detection of lesions in patients with MS. With the 3D FLAIR sequence significantly higher CNRs were achieved and significantly more lesions in patients with MS were detected.


Sclerosis Multiple Brain 2D/3D FLAIR 3.0 Tesla 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Gudrun Japp, MD, Department of Neurology, Asklepios Clinic Falkenstein, Asklepiosweg 15, D-61462 Königstein, Germany, for her help in the recruitment of patients. Author J.P.M. was supported in part by NIH grant R01-NS035142 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.


  1. 1.
    Hajnal JV, Bryant DJ, Kasuboski L, Pattany PM, De Coene B, Lewis PD et al (1992) Use of fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) pulse sequences in MRI of the brain. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16:841–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Coene B, Hajnal JV, Gatehouse P, Longmore DB, White SJ, Oatridge A et al (1992) MR of the brain using fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) pulse sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 13:1555–1564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tubridy N, Barker GJ, MacManus DG, Moseley IF, Miller DH (1998) Three-dimensional fast fluid attenuated inversion recovery (3D fast FLAIR):a new MRI sequence which increases the detectable cerebral lesion load in multiple sclerosis. Br J Radiol 71:840–845PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tan IL, Pouwels PJW, van Schijndel RA, Adèr HJ, Manoliu RA, Barkhof F (2002) Isotropic 3D fast FLAIR imaging of brain in multiple sclerosis patients: initial experience. Eur Radiol 12:559–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tan IL, van Schijndel RA, Pouwels PJW, Adèr HJ, Barkhof F (2002) Serial isotropic three-dimensional fast FLAIR imaging: using image registration and subtraction to reveal active multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:777–782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barker GJB (1998) 3D fast FLAIR: a CSF-nulled 3D fast spin-echo pulse sequence. Magn Reson Imaging 16:715–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mugler JP III, Bao S, Mulkern RV, Guttmann CRG, Robertson RL, Jolesz FA, Brookeman JR (2000) Optimized single-slab three-dimensional spin-echo MR imaging of the Brain. Radiology 216:891–899PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kallmes DF, Hui FK, Mugler JP III (2001) Suppression of cerebrospinal fluid and blood flow artifacts in FLAIR MR imaging with a single slab three-dimensional pulse sequence: initial experience. Radiology 221:251–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for the submission of premarket notifications for magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. Washington, DC: Nov. 14, 1998Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwindt W, Kugel H, Bachmann R, Allkemper T, Maintz D, Pfleiderer B, Tombach B, Heindel W (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for examination of the neurocranium at 3T. Eur Radiol 13:2170–2179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barkhof F, Filippi M, Miller DH et al (1997) Comparison of MRI at first presentation to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. Brain 120:2059–2069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G et al (2001) Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the international panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 50:121–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filippi M, Yousry T, Baratti C, Horsfield MA, Mammi S, Becker C et al (1996) Quantitative assessment of MRI lesion load in multiple sclerosis. A comparison of conventional spin-echo with fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery. Brain 119:1349–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bastianello S, Bozzao A, Paolillo A, Giugni E, Gasperini C, Koudriavtseva T et al (1997) Fast spin-echo and fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery versus conventional spin-echo sequences for MR quantification of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 18:699–704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tubridy N, Barker GJ, MacManus DG, Moseley IF, Miller DH (1998) Optimisation of unenhanced MRI for detection of lesions in multiple sclerosis: a comparison of five pulse sequences with variable slice thickness. Neuroradiology 40:293–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herskovits EH, Itoh R, Melhem ER (2001) Accuracy for detection of simulated lesions: comparison of fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery, proton density-weighted, and T2-weighted synthetic brain MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 118:1313–1318Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Melki PS, Mulkern RV (1992) Magnetization transfer effects in multislice RARE sequences. Magn Reson Med 24:189–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Molyneux PD, Tubridy N, Parker GJM, Barker GJ, MacManus DG, Tofts PS et al (1998) The Effect of section thickness on MR lesion detection and quantification in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 19:1715–1720PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGowan JC, Patel RS (2000) Technical issues of MRI examination of posterior fossa. J Neurol Sci 172:S20–S42Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stevenson VL, Parker GJM, Barker GJ, Birnie K, Tofts PS, Miller DH, Thompson AJ (2000) Variations in T1 and T2 relaxation times of normal appearing white matter and lesions in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 178:81–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naganawa S, Koshikawa T, Nakamura T, Kawai H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T et al (2004) Comparison of flow artifacts between 2D-FLAIR and 3D-FLAIR sequences at 3 T. Eur Radiol 14:1901–1908PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lu H, Nagae-Poetscher LM, Golay X, Lin D, Pomper M, Zijl van PCM (2005) Routine clinical brain MRI sequences for use at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:13–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Busse RF. Equivalent T2-contrast for fast spin echo sequences with low and variable flip refocusing. Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2344; 2005. Thirteenth Meeting, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Papanikolaou N, Papadaki E, Karampekios S (2004) T2 relaxation time analysis in patients with multiple sclerosis: correlation with magnetization transfer ratio. Eur Radiol 14:115–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Bink
    • 1
    Email author
  • Melanie Schmitt
    • 2
  • Jochen Gaa
    • 1
  • John P. Mugler3rd
    • 3
  • Heinrich Lanfermann
    • 1
  • Friedhelm E. Zanella
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyJohann Wolfgang Goethe UniversityFrankfurt/MainGermany
  2. 2.Siemens Medical SolutionsErlangenGermany
  3. 3.Departments of Radiology and Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations