4.6 Article

Comparison of T2*-weighted and QSM contrasts in Parkinson's disease to visualize the STN with MRI

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176130

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungs-Gemeinschaft (DFG) [KO2268/6-1]
  2. Brain Foundation of the Netherlands
  3. Vidi grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
  4. Starter Grant from the European Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The subthalamic nucleus (STN) plays a crucial role in the surgical treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD). Studies investigating optimal protocols for STN visualization using state of the art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques have shown that susceptibility weighted images, which display the magnetic susceptibility distribution, yield better results than T-1-weighted, T-2-weighted, and T-2*-weighted contrasts. However, these findings are based on young healthy individuals, and require validation in elderly individuals and persons suffering from PD. Using 7T MRI, the present study set out to investigate which MRI contrasts yielded the best results for STN visualization in 12 PD patients and age-matched healthy controls (HC). We found that STNs were more difficult to delineate in PD as reflected by a lower inter-rater agreement when compared to HCs. No STN size differences were observed between the groups. Analyses of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) images showed a higher inter-rater agreement reflected by increased Dice-coefficients. The location of the center of mass of the STN was not affected by contrast. Overall, contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were higher in QSM than in T-2*-weighted images. This can at least partially, explain the higher inter-rater agreement in QSM. The current results indicate that the calculation of QSM contrasts contributes to an improved visualization of the entire STN. We conclude that QSM contrast is the preferred choice for the visualization of the STN in persons with PD as well as in aging HC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据