A Novel MRI Biomarker of Spinal Cord White Matter Injury: T2*-Weighted White Matter to Gray Matter Signal Intensity Ratio

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Stroman PW,
   3. Wheeler-Kingshott C,
   4. Bacon M, et al

   . The current state-of-the-art of spinal cord imaging: methods. Neuroimage 2014;84:1070–81 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.124 pmid:23685159

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Wheeler-Kingshott CA,
   3. Stroman PW,
   4. Schwab JM, et al

   . The current state-of-the-art of spinal cord imaging: applications. Neuroimage 2014;84:1082–93 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.014 pmid:23859923

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Martin AR,
   3. Aleksanderek I,
   4. Cohen-Adad J, et al

   . Translating state-of-the-art spinal cord MRI techniques to clinical use: a systematic review of clinical studies utilizing DTI, MT, MWF, MRS, and fMRI. Neuroimage Clin 2016;10:192–238 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2015.11.019 pmid:26862478

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Oh J,
   3. Seigo M,
   4. Saidha S, et al

   . Spinal cord normalization in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2014;24:577–84 doi:10.1111/jon.12097 pmid:24593281

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Kearney H,
   3. Yiannakas MC,
   4. Abdel-Aziz K, et al

   . Improved MRI quantification of spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:617–23 doi:10.1002/jmri.24194 pmid:23633384

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Kearney H,
   3. Altmann DR,
   4. Samson RS, et al

   . Cervical cord lesion load is associated with disability independently from atrophy in MS. Neurology 2015;84:367–73 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001186 pmid:25540312

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Martin AR,
   3. De Leener B,
   4. Cohen-Adad J, et al

   . Clinically feasible microstructural MRI to quantify cervical spinal cord tissue injury using DTI, MT, and T2*-weighted imaging: assessment of normative data and reliability. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017 Apr 20. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5163 pmid:28428213

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Kato F,
   3. Yukawa Y,
   4. Suda K, et al

   . Normal morphology, age-related changes and abnormal findings of the cervical spine, part II: magnetic resonance imaging of over 1,200 asymptomatic subjects. Eur Spine J 2012;21:1499–507 doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2176-4 pmid:22302162

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Uda T,
   3. Takami T,
   4. Tsuyuguchi N, et al

   . Assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging parameter at 3.0 Tesla. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:407–14 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826f25a3 pmid:22914703

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Budzik JF,
    3. Balbi V,
    4. Le Thuc V, et al

    . Diffusion tensor imaging and fibre tracking in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Radiol 2011;21:426–33 doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1927-z pmid:20725834

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Ellingson BM,
    3. Salamon N,
    4. Grinstead JW, et al

    . Diffusion tensor imaging predicts functional impairment in mild-to-moderate cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 2014;14:2589–97 doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.02.027 pmid:24561036

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Grabher P,
    3. Mohammadi S,
    4. Trachsler A, et al

    . Voxel-based analysis of grey and white matter degeneration in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Sci Rep 2016;6:24636 doi:10.1038/srep24636 pmid:27095134

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Jones JG,
    3. Cen SY,
    4. Lebel RM, et al

    . Diffusion tensor imaging correlates with the clinical assessment of disease severity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and predicts outcome following surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:471–78 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3199 pmid:22821918

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Wen CY,
    3. Cui JL,
    4. Liu HS, et al

    . Is diffusion anisotropy a biomarker for disease severity and surgical prognosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Radiology 2014;270:197–204 doi:10.1148/radiol.13121885 pmid:23942607

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Cohen-Adad J,
    3. El Mendili MM,
    4. Lehéricy S, et al

    . Demyelination and degeneration in the injured human spinal cord detected with diffusion and magnetization transfer MRI. Neuroimage 2011;55:1024–33 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.089 pmid:21232610

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Oh J,
    3. Saidha S,
    4. Chen M, et al

    . Spinal cord quantitative MRI discriminates between disability levels in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2013;80:540–47 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31828154c5 pmid:23325903

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Oh J,
    3. Zackowski K,
    4. Chen M, et al

    . Multiparametric MRI correlates of sensorimotor function in the spinal cord in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2013;19:427–35 doi:10.1177/1352458512456614 pmid:22891033

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Yiannakas MC,
    3. Kearney H,
    4. Samson RS, et al

    . Feasibility of grey matter and white matter segmentation of the upper cervical cord in vivo: a pilot study with application to magnetisation transfer measurements. Neuroimage 2012;63:1054–59 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.048 pmid:22850571

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Cohen-Adad J,
    3. Buchbinder B,
    4. Oaklander AL

    . Cervical spinal cord injection of epidural corticosteroids: comprehensive longitudinal study including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Pain 2012;153:2292–99 doi:10.1016/j.pain.2012.07.028 pmid:22964435

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Cohen-Adad J,
    3. Zhao W,
    4. Keil B, et al

    . 7-T MRI of the spinal cord can detect lateral corticospinal tract abnormality in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve 2013;47:760–62 doi:10.1002/mus.23720 pmid:23553571

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Taso M,
    3. Girard OM,
    4. Duhamel G, et al

    . Tract-specific and age-related variations of the spinal cord microstructure: a multi-parametric MRI study using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT). NMR Biomed 2016;29:817–32 doi:10.1002/nbm.3530 pmid:27100385

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Samson RS,
    3. Levy S,
    4. Schneider T, et al

    . ZOOM or non-ZOOM? Assessing spinal cord diffusion tensor imaging protocols for multi-centre studies. PLoS One 2016;11:e0155557 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155557 pmid:27171194

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Kerkovsky M,
    3. Bednarik J,
    4. Dusek L, et al

    . Magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging in patients with cervical spondylotic spinal cord compression: correlations between clinical and electrophysiological findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:48–56 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820e6c35 pmid:21228747

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Smith SA,
    3. Jones CK,
    4. Gifford A, et al

    . Reproducibility of tract-specific magnetization transfer and diffusion tensor imaging in the cervical spinal cord at 3 Tesla. NMR Biomed 2010;23:207–17 doi:10.1002/nbm.1447 pmid:19924726

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Samson RS,
    3. Ciccarelli O,
    4. Kachramanoglou C, et al

    . Tissue- and column-specific measurements from multi-parameter mapping of the human cervical spinal cord at 3 T. NMR Biomed 2013;26:1823–30 doi:10.1002/nbm.3022 pmid:24105923

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Fehlings MG,
    3. Wilson JR,
    4. Kopjar B, et al

    . Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1651–58 doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00589 pmid:24048552

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. Nouri A,
    3. Martin AR,
    4. Mikulis D, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: a review of structural changes and measurement techniques. Neurosurg Focus 2016;40:E5 doi:10.3171/2016.3.FOCUS1667 pmid:27246488

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Kirshblum SC,
    3. Burns SP,
    4. Biering-Sorensen F, et al

    . International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med 2011;34:535–46 doi:10.1179/204577211X13207446293695 pmid:22330108

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. De Leener B,
    3. Lévy S,
    4. Dupont SM, et al

    . SCT: Spinal Cord Toolbox, an open-source software for processing spinal cord MRI data. Neuroimage 2017;145(pt A):24–43 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.009 pmid:27720818

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Tetreault LA,
    3. Karpova A,
    4. Fehlings MG

    . Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2015;24(suppl 2):236–51 doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2658-z pmid:23386279

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Nouri A,
    3. Tetreault L,
    4. Zamorano JJ, et al

    . Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2015;40:171–78 doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000678 pmid:25668335

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. White ML,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Healey K

    . Cervical spinal cord multiple sclerosis: evaluation with 2D multi-echo recombined gradient echo MR imaging. J Spinal Cord Med 2011;34:93–98 doi:10.1179/107902610X12911165975025 pmid:21528632

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Cohen-Adad J

    . What can we learn from T2* maps of the cortex? Neuroimage 2014;93(pt 2):189–200 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.023 pmid:23357070

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Lee J,
    3. Shmueli K,
    4. Kang BT, et al

    . The contribution of myelin to magnetic susceptibility-weighted contrasts in high-field MRI of the brain. Neuroimage 2012;59:3967–75 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.076 pmid:22056461

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Fukunaga M,
    3. Li TQ,
    4. van Gelderen P, et al

    . Layer-specific variation of iron content in cerebral cortex as a source of MRI contrast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:3834–39 doi:10.1073/pnas.0911177107 pmid:20133720

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    2. Haacke EM,
    3. Cheng NY,
    4. House MJ, et al

    . Imaging iron stores in the brain using magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2005;23:1–25 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2004.10.001 pmid:15733784

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    2. Marques JP,
    3. Maddage R,
    4. Mlynarik V, et al

    . On the origin of the MR image phase contrast: an in vivo MR microscopy study of the rat brain at 14.1 T. Neuroimage 2009;46:345–52 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.023 pmid:19254768

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Vedantam A,
    3. Eckardt G,
    4. Wang MC, et al

    . Clinical correlates of high cervical fractional anisotropy in acute cervical spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg 2015;83:824–28 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2013.09.017 pmid:24055569

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Wilson JR,
    3. Barry S,
    4. Fischer DJ, et al

    . Frequency, timing, and predictors of neurological dysfunction in the nonmyelopathic patient with cervical spinal cord compression, canal stenosis, and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 2013;38:S37–54 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f2e7 pmid:23963005

    CrossRefPubMed