D S Meier1, H L Weiner, C R G Guttmann. 1. Department of Radiology, Center for Neurological Imaging, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston MA 02115, USA. meier@bwh.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Formation of lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS) shows pronounced short-term fluctuation of MR imaging hyperintensity and size, a qualitatively known but poorly characterized phenomenon. With the use of time-series modeling of MR imaging intensity, our study relates the short-term dynamics of new T2 lesion formation to those of contrast enhancement and markers of long-term progression of disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 915 examinations from weekly to monthly MR imaging in 40 patients with MS using a time-series model, emulating 2 opposing processes of T2 prolongation and shortening, respectively. Patterns of activity, duration, and residual hyperintensity within new T2 lesions were measured and evaluated for relationships to disability, atrophy, and clinical phenotype in long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Significant T2 activity was observed for 8 to 10 weeks beyond contrast enhancement, which suggests that T2 MR imaging is sensitive to noninflammatory processes such as degeneration and repair. Larger lesions showed longer subacute phases but disproportionally more recovery. Patients with smaller average peak lesion size showed trends toward greater disability and proportional residual damage. Higher rates of disability or atrophy were associated with subjects whose lesions showed greater residual hyperintensity. CONCLUSION: Smaller lesions appeared disproportionally more damaging than larger lesions, with lesions in progressive MS smaller and of shorter activity than in relapsing-remitting MS. Associations of lesion dynamics with rates of atrophy and disability and clinical subtype suggest that changes in lesion dynamics may represent a shift from inflammatory toward degenerative disease activity and greater proximity to a progressive stage, possibly allowing staging of the progression of MS earlier, before atrophy or disability develops.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Formation of lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS) shows pronounced short-term fluctuation of MR imaging hyperintensity and size, a qualitatively known but poorly characterized phenomenon. With the use of time-series modeling of MR imaging intensity, our study relates the short-term dynamics of new T2 lesion formation to those of contrast enhancement and markers of long-term progression of disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 915 examinations from weekly to monthly MR imaging in 40 patients with MS using a time-series model, emulating 2 opposing processes of T2 prolongation and shortening, respectively. Patterns of activity, duration, and residual hyperintensity within new T2 lesions were measured and evaluated for relationships to disability, atrophy, and clinical phenotype in long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Significant T2 activity was observed for 8 to 10 weeks beyond contrast enhancement, which suggests that T2 MR imaging is sensitive to noninflammatory processes such as degeneration and repair. Larger lesions showed longer subacute phases but disproportionally more recovery. Patients with smaller average peak lesion size showed trends toward greater disability and proportional residual damage. Higher rates of disability or atrophy were associated with subjects whose lesions showed greater residual hyperintensity. CONCLUSION: Smaller lesions appeared disproportionally more damaging than larger lesions, with lesions in progressive MS smaller and of shorter activity than in relapsing-remitting MS. Associations of lesion dynamics with rates of atrophy and disability and clinical subtype suggest that changes in lesion dynamics may represent a shift from inflammatory toward degenerative disease activity and greater proximity to a progressive stage, possibly allowing staging of the progression of MS earlier, before atrophy or disability develops.
Authors: Mark Keegan; Fatima König; Robyn McClelland; Wolfgang Brück; Yazmín Morales; Andreas Bitsch; Hillel Panitch; Hans Lassmann; Brian Weinshenker; Moses Rodriguez; Joseph Parisi; Claudia F Lucchinetti Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 13-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Francesca Bagnato; Neal Jeffries; Nancy D Richert; Roger D Stone; Joan M Ohayon; Henry F McFarland; Joseph A Frank Journal: Brain Date: 2003-06-23 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Peter A Brex; Olga Ciccarelli; Jonathon I O'Riordan; Michael Sailer; Alan J Thompson; David H Miller Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J H van Waesberghe; W Kamphorst; C J De Groot; M A van Walderveen; J A Castelijns; R Ravid; G J Lycklama à Nijeholt; P van der Valk; C H Polman; A J Thompson; F Barkhof Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: P D Molyneux; L Kappos; C Polman; C Pozzilli; F Barkhof; M Filippi; T Yousry; D Hahn; K Wagner; M Ghazi; K Beckmann; F Dahlke; N Losseff; G J Barker; A J Thompson; D H Miller Journal: Brain Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Aaron Carass; Snehashis Roy; Amod Jog; Jennifer L Cuzzocreo; Elizabeth Magrath; Adrian Gherman; Julia Button; James Nguyen; Ferran Prados; Carole H Sudre; Manuel Jorge Cardoso; Niamh Cawley; Olga Ciccarelli; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Sébastien Ourselin; Laurence Catanese; Hrishikesh Deshpande; Pierre Maurel; Olivier Commowick; Christian Barillot; Xavier Tomas-Fernandez; Simon K Warfield; Suthirth Vaidya; Abhijith Chunduru; Ramanathan Muthuganapathy; Ganapathy Krishnamurthi; Andrew Jesson; Tal Arbel; Oskar Maier; Heinz Handels; Leonardo O Iheme; Devrim Unay; Saurabh Jain; Diana M Sima; Dirk Smeets; Mohsen Ghafoorian; Bram Platel; Ariel Birenbaum; Hayit Greenspan; Pierre-Louis Bazin; Peter A Calabresi; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Lotta M Ellingsen; Daniel S Reich; Jerry L Prince; Dzung L Pham Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Menghan Hu; Matthew K Schindler; Blake E Dewey; Daniel S Reich; Russell T Shinohara; Ani Eloyan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: F Durand-Dubief; B Belaroussi; J P Armspach; M Dufour; S Roggerone; S Vukusic; S Hannoun; D Sappey-Marinier; C Confavreux; F Cotton Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kilian M Pohl; Ender Konukoglu; Sebastian Novellas; Nicholas Ayache; Andriy Fedorov; Ion-Florin Talos; Alexandra Golby; William M Wells; Ron Kikinis; Peter M Black Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Ana Paula Kallaur; Josiane Lopes; Sayonara Rangel Oliveira; Andrea Name Colado Simão; Edna Maria Vissoci Reiche; Elaine Regina Delicato de Almeida; Helena Kaminami Morimoto; Wildea Lice Carvalho Jennings de Pereira; Daniele Frizon Alfieri; Sueli Donizete Borelli; Domacio Ramon Kaimen-Maciel; Michael Maes Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Rohit Bakshi; Alan J Thompson; Maria A Rocca; Daniel Pelletier; Vincent Dousset; Frederik Barkhof; Matilde Inglese; Charles R G Guttmann; Mark A Horsfield; Massimo Filippi Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 44.182