BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported lower focal demyelination and inflammatory activity in primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) than in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). However, very little is known about possible differences in damage and distribution that may occur within lesions visible on magnetic resonance imaging in the 2 forms of the disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in spatial distribution and structural damage of focal demyelinating lesions in patients with PPMS and RRMS. DESIGN: We acquired conventional magnetic resonance and magnetization transfer images in 24 PPMS and 36 RRMS patients (matched for sex, age, and disease duration) and 23 healthy sex- and age-matched controls. In each participant, we measured T2- and T1-weighted lesion volumes and magnetization transfer ratios in lesional and nonlesional brain tissues. The spatial distribution of focal demyelination was assessed using T2- and T1-weighted lesion probability maps in each patient group. Voxel-based procedures were performed. SETTING: University hospital. RESULTS: Patients with PPMS had greater disability than those with RRMS, with 70% of PPMS patients and 11% of RRMS patients having relevant motor symptoms. The T1- and T2-weighted lesion volumes were higher in PPMS than in RRMS patients (P < .001). T1- and T2-weighted lesion probability maps showed that the maximum probability for lesions was higher in PPMS (peak probability, 45% and 29%, respectively) than in RRMS (peak probability, 33% and 19%, respectively) patients and was localized in the corona radiata. Voxelwise analysis of lesional magnetization transfer ratios gave overlapping results. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cerebral pathologic involvement exist between RRMS and PPMS and contribute to variations in clinical disability.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported lower focal demyelination and inflammatory activity in primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) than in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). However, very little is known about possible differences in damage and distribution that may occur within lesions visible on magnetic resonance imaging in the 2 forms of the disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in spatial distribution and structural damage of focal demyelinating lesions in patients with PPMS and RRMS. DESIGN: We acquired conventional magnetic resonance and magnetization transfer images in 24 PPMS and 36 RRMS patients (matched for sex, age, and disease duration) and 23 healthy sex- and age-matched controls. In each participant, we measured T2- and T1-weighted lesion volumes and magnetization transfer ratios in lesional and nonlesional brain tissues. The spatial distribution of focal demyelination was assessed using T2- and T1-weighted lesion probability maps in each patient group. Voxel-based procedures were performed. SETTING: University hospital. RESULTS:Patients with PPMS had greater disability than those with RRMS, with 70% of PPMS patients and 11% of RRMS patients having relevant motor symptoms. The T1- and T2-weighted lesion volumes were higher in PPMS than in RRMS patients (P < .001). T1- and T2-weighted lesion probability maps showed that the maximum probability for lesions was higher in PPMS (peak probability, 45% and 29%, respectively) than in RRMS (peak probability, 33% and 19%, respectively) patients and was localized in the corona radiata. Voxelwise analysis of lesional magnetization transfer ratios gave overlapping results. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cerebral pathologic involvement exist between RRMS and PPMS and contribute to variations in clinical disability.
Authors: Benjamin M Ellingson; Timothy F Cloughesy; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Shadi Lalezari; Taryar Zaw; Kourosh Motevalibashinaeini; Paul S Mischel; Whitney B Pope Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Ponnada A Narayana; Yuxiang Zhou; Khader M Hasan; Sushmita Datta; Xiaojun Sun; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: M H Sombekke; M M Vellinga; B M J Uitdehaag; F Barkhof; C H Polman; D Arteta; D Tejedor; A Martinez; J B A Crusius; A S Peña; J J G Geurts; H Vrenken Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Burgetova; P Dusek; M Vaneckova; D Horakova; C Langkammer; J Krasensky; L Sobisek; P Matras; M Masek; Z Seidl Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Francesca Rossi; Antonio Giorgio; Marco Battaglini; Maria Laura Stromillo; Emilio Portaccio; Benedetta Goretti; Antonio Federico; Bahia Hakiki; Maria Pia Amato; Nicola De Stefano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicola De Stefano; Maria Laura Stromillo; Francesca Rossi; Marco Battaglini; Antonio Giorgio; Emilio Portaccio; Bahia Hakiki; Gianmichele Malentacchi; Claudio Gasperini; Mario Santangelo; Maria Letizia Bartolozzi; Maria Pia Sormani; Antonio Federico; Maria Pia Amato Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 3.240