Comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Acute Demyelinating Optic Neuritis

Comparison of a Whole-Brain Contrast-Enhanced 3D TSE T1WI versus Orbits Contrast-Enhanced 2D Coronal T1WI at 3T MRI for the Detection of Optic Nerve Enhancement in Patients with Acute Loss of Visual Acuity

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

MR imaging is the technique of choice for patients presenting with acute loss of visual acuity with no obvious ophthalmologic cause. The goal of our study was to compare orbits contrast-enhanced 2D coronal T1WI with a whole-brain contrast-enhanced 3D (WBCE-3D) TSE T1WI at 3T for the detection of optic nerve enhancement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This institutional review board-approved retrospective single-center study included patients presenting with acute loss of vision who underwent 3T MR imaging from November 2014 to February 2020. Two radiologists, blinded to all data, individually assessed the presence of enhancement of the optic nerve on orbits contrast-enhanced 2D T1WI and WBCE-3D T1WI separately and in random order. A McNemar test and a Cohen κ method were used for comparing the 2 MR imaging sequences.

RESULTS

One thousand twenty-three patients (638 women and 385 men; mean age, 42 [SD, 18.3] years) were included. There was a strong concordance between WBCE-3D T1WI and orbits contrast-enhanced 2D T1WI when detecting enhancement of the optic nerve: κ = 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90). WBCE-3D T1WI was significantly more likely to detect canalicular enhancement compared with orbits contrast-enhanced 2D T1WI: 178/1023 (17.4%) versus 138/1023 (13.5%) (P < .001) and 108/1023 (10.6%) versus 90/1023 (8.8%) (P = .04), respectively. The WBCE-3D T1WI sequence detected 27/1023 (3%) instances of optic disc enhancement versus 0/1023 (0%) on orbits contrast-enhanced 2D T1WI. There were significantly fewer severe artifacts on WBCE-3D T1WI compared with orbits contrast-enhanced 2D T1WI: 68/1023 (6.6%) versus 101/1023 (9.8%) (P < .001). The median reader-reported confidence was significantly higher with coronal T1WI compared with 3D TSE T1WI: 5 (95% CI, 4-5) versus 3 (95% CI, 1-4; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that there was a strong concordance between WBCE-3D T1WI and orbits contrast-enhanced 2D T1WI when detecting enhancement of the optic nerve in patients with acute loss of visual acuity with no obvious ophthalmologic cause. WBCE-3D T1WI demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing optic neuritis, particularly in cases involving the canalicular segments.

Applying the 2022 optic neuritis criteria to noninflammatory optic neuropathies with optic nerve T2-hyperintensity: an observational study

INTRODUCTION

Recent diagnostic criteria for optic neuritis include T2-hyperintensity of the optic nerve (ON), even without associated contrast enhancement. However, isolated ON-T2-hyperintensity is a nonspecific finding found in any optic neuropathy or severe retinopathy. We applied the 2022 optic neuritis diagnostic criteria to a cohort of patients with noninflammatory optic neuropathy and ON-T2-hyperintensity in at least one eye, to assess the rate of optic neuritis misdiagnosis using these criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent brain/orbit MRI with/without contrast between 07/01/2019 and 06/30/2022. Patients with ON-T2-hyperintensity in at least one eye were included. The 2022 optic neuritis diagnostic criteria were applied to patients with noninflammatory optic neuropathies who had an ophthalmologic examination available for review.

RESULTS

Of 150 patients included, 85/150 had compressive optic neuropathy; 32/150 had glaucoma; 12/150 had papilledema; 8/150 had hereditary (3), radiation-induced (3), nutritional (1), traumatic (1) optic neuropathies (none fulfilled the criteria); 13/150 had ischemic optic neuropathy and 4 fulfilled the criteria as definite optic neuritis due to contrast enhancement of the ON head. Seven additional patients would have satisfied the diagnostic criteria if red flags for alternative diagnoses had been overlooked.

DISCUSSION

The application of the 2022 optic neuritis diagnostic criteria in patients with noninflammatory optic neuropathy and ON-T2-hyperintensity in at least one ON resulted in misdiagnosis of optic neuritis in only 4 patients because of ON head enhancement, all with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Neuro-ophthalmologic evaluation and exclusion of the ON head as a location in the MRI criteria would have prevented optic neuritis misdiagnosis in our study.

Optic Nerve MRI T2-Hyperintensity: A Nonspecific Marker of Optic Nerve Damage

BACKGROUND

MRI abnormalities are common in optic neuropathies, especially on dedicated orbital imaging. In acute optic neuritis, optic nerve T2-hyperintensity associated with optic nerve contrast enhancement is the typical imaging finding. In chronic optic neuropathies, optic nerve T2-hyperintensity and atrophy are regularly seen. Isolated optic nerve T2-hyperintensity is often erroneously presumed to reflect optic neuritis, frequently prompting unnecessary investigations and neuro-ophthalmology consultations. Our goal was to determine the significance of optic nerve/chiasm T2-hyperintensity and/or atrophy on MRI.

METHODS

Retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent brain/orbital MRI with/without contrast at our institution between July 1, 2019, and June 6, 2022. Patients with optic nerve/chiasm T2-hyperintensity and/or atrophy were included. Medical records were reviewed to determine the etiology of the T2-hyperintensity and/or atrophy.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-seven patients (698 eyes) were included [mean age 52 years (SD ±18 years); 57% women]. Of the 364 of 698 eyes with optic nerve/chiasm T2-hyperintensity without atrophy, the causes were compressive (104), inflammatory (103), multifactorial (49), glaucoma (21), normal (19), and other (68); of the 219 of 698 eyes with optic nerve/chiasm T2-hyperintensity and atrophy, the causes were compressive (57), multifactorial (40), inflammatory (38), glaucoma (33), normal (7), and other (44); of the 115 of 698 eyes with optic nerve/chiasm atrophy without T2-hyperintensity, the causes were glaucoma (34), multifactorial (21), inflammatory (13), compressive (11), normal (10), and other (26). Thirty-six eyes with optic nerve/chiasm T2-hyperintensity or atrophy did not have evidence of optic neuropathy or retinopathy on ophthalmologic examination, and 17 eyes had clinical evidence of severe retinopathy without primary optic neuropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Optic nerve T2-hyperintensity or atrophy can be found with any cause of optic neuropathy and with severe chronic retinopathy. These MRI findings should not automatically prompt optic neuritis diagnosis, workup, and treatment, and caution is advised regarding their use in the diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis. Cases of incidentally found MRI optic nerve T2-hyperintensity and/or atrophy without a known underlying optic neuropathy or severe retinopathy are rare. Such patients should receive an ophthalmologic examination before further investigations.

Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging for Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a high sensitivity for differentiating between malignant and non-malignant breast lesions but is sometimes limited due to its low specificity. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of mean kurtosis (MK) and mean diffusivity (MD) values in magnetic resonance diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) for benign and malignant breast lesions.

Methods

Original articles on relevant topics, published from 2010 to 2019, in PubMed, EMBASE, and WanFang databases were systematically reviewed. According to the purpose of the study and the characteristics of DKI reported, the diagnostic performances of MK and MD were evaluated, and meta-regression was conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity.

Results

Fourteen studies involving 1,099 (451 benign and 648 malignant) lesions were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for MD were 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-0.87), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 4.44 (95% CI, 3.54-5.57), and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.13-0.26), while those for MK were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.91), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89), 5.72 (95% CI, 4.26-7.69), and 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09-0.19), respectively. The overall area under the curve (AUC) was 0.91 for MD and 0.95 for MK.

Conclusions

Analysis of the data from 14 studies showed that MK had a higher pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, and diagnostic performance for differentiating between breast lesions, compared with MD.