Consensus recommendations for MS cortical lesion scoring using double inversion recovery MRI

J J G Geurts1, S D Roosendaal, M Calabrese

  • 1VU University Medical Center, Department of Anatomy & Neuroscience, MF G-116, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.geurts@vumc.nl

Neurology
|January 7, 2011
PubMed
Abstract

Insights

Standardizing double inversion recovery (DIR) imaging protocols for multiple sclerosis (MS) cortical lesions is crucial for consistent data comparison. This study proposes consensus recommendations to improve the reliability of scoring MS cortical lesions using DIR MRI.

Area of Science:

  • Neuroimaging
  • Radiology
  • Neurology

Background:

  • Multiple sclerosis (MS) research faces challenges comparing cortical lesion data due to varied double inversion recovery (DIR) imaging protocols across centers.
  • Standardization is needed for reliable assessment of MS cortical lesions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop consensus recommendations for scoring cortical lesions in MS patients using DIR MRI.
  • To assess the agreement of these recommendations across multiple European centers.

Main Methods:

  • Consensus recommendations for scoring cortical lesions on DIR images were formulated in a multinational meeting.
  • Recommendations included lesion definition (hyperintense, ≥3 pixels, ≥1.0 mm²), artifact identification, and use of complementary MRI contrasts.
  • The recommendations were tested on heterogeneous DIR images from 6 European centers.

Main Results:

  • Cortical lesions were defined as focal, hyperintense abnormalities on DIR images, meeting size criteria.
  • Moderate agreement (54% lesion agreement) was achieved using the proposed recommendations.
  • Complete agreement was observed in 19.4% of lesions, particularly larger, mixed lesions.

Conclusions:

  • Current variations in DIR protocols hinder the comparability of published MS cortical lesion data.
  • The proposed recommendations show potential for improving scoring consistency, though further validation is needed.
  • Prospective, multicenter studies with standardized DIR protocols are recommended to evaluate sensitivity and specificity.

Related Concept Videos