Quantitative multi-parameter mapping of R1, PD(*), MT, and R2(*) at 3T: a multi-center validation.

Multi-center studies using magnetic resonance imaging facilitate studying small effect sizes, global population variance and rare diseases. The reliability and sensitivity of these multi-center studies crucially depend on the comparability of the data generated at different sites and time points. The level of inter-site comparability is still controversial for conventional anatomical T1-weighted MRI data. Quantitative multi-parameter mapping (MPM) was designed to provide MR parameter measures that are comparable across sites and time points, i.e., 1 mm high-resolution maps of the longitudinal relaxation rate (R1 = 1/T1), effective proton density (PD(*)), magnetization transfer saturation (MT) and effective transverse relaxation rate (R2(*) = 1/T2(*)). MPM was validated at 3T for use in multi-center studies by scanning five volunteers at three different sites. We determined the inter-site bias, inter-site and intra-site coefficient of variation (CoV) for typical morphometric measures [i.e., gray matter (GM) probability maps used in voxel-based morphometry] and the four quantitative parameters. The inter-site bias and CoV were smaller than 3.1 and 8%, respectively, except for the inter-site CoV of R2(*) (<20%). The GM probability maps based on the MT parameter maps had a 14% higher inter-site reproducibility than maps based on conventional T1-weighted images. The low inter-site bias and variance in the parameters and derived GM probability maps confirm the high comparability of the quantitative maps across sites and time points. The reliability, short acquisition time, high resolution and the detailed insights into the brain microstructure provided by MPM makes it an efficient tool for multi-center imaging studies.

Discrepancy between Visual Acuity and Microperimetry in AMD Patients: Visual Acuity Appears as an Inadequate Parameter to Test Macular Function.

BACKGROUND: Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 0.8 or above in AMD patients can sometimes correspond to poor macular function inducing a serious visual handicap. Microperimetry can be used to objectivize this difference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken on 233 files of AMD patients of whom 82 had had a microperimetry. BCVA was compared with microperimetry performance. All examinations were performed in an identical setting by the same team of 3 persons. RESULTS: Among the 82 patients included, 32 (39.0%) had a BCVA equal to or above 0.8 even though their microperimetry performance was lower than 200/560 db. 10 of them (12.2% of total) had an even poorer microperimetry below 120/560 db indicating poor macular function. CONCLUSIONS: More than a third of the AMD patients had a bad or very bad microperimetry performance in parallel with a good visual acuity. Microperimetry is a valuable tool to assess and follow real macular function in AMD patients when visual acuity alone can be misleading.