BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal cord atrophy is a common feature of MS. However, it is unknown which cord levels are most susceptible to atrophy. We performed whole cord imaging to identify the levels most susceptible to atrophy in patients with MS versus controls and also tested for differences among MS clinical phenotypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with MS (2 with CIS, 27 with RRMS, 2 with SPMS, and 4 with PPMS phenotypes) and 27 healthy controls underwent whole cord 3T MR imaging. The spinal cord contour was segmented and assigned to bins representing each C1 to T12 vertebral level. Volumes were normalized, and group comparisons were age-adjusted. RESULTS: There was a trend toward decreased spinal cord volume at the upper cervical levels in PPMS/SPMS versus controls. A trend toward increased spinal cord volume throughout the cervical and thoracic cord in RRMS/CIS versus controls reached statistical significance at the T10 vertebral level. A statistically significant decrease was found in spinal cord volume at the upper cervical levels in PPMS/SPMS versus RRMS/CIS. CONCLUSIONS: Opposing pathologic factors impact spinal cord volume measures in MS. Patients with PPMS demonstrated a trend toward upper cervical cord atrophy. However patients with RRMS showed a trend toward increased volume at the cervical and thoracic levels, which most likely reflects inflammation or edema-related cord expansion. With the disease causing both expansion and contraction of the cord, the specificity of spinal cord volume measures for neuroprotective therapeutic effect may be limited.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Spinal cord atrophy is a common feature of MS. However, it is unknown which cord levels are most susceptible to atrophy. We performed whole cord imaging to identify the levels most susceptible to atrophy in patients with MS versus controls and also tested for differences among MS clinical phenotypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with MS (2 with CIS, 27 with RRMS, 2 with SPMS, and 4 with PPMS phenotypes) and 27 healthy controls underwent whole cord 3T MR imaging. The spinal cord contour was segmented and assigned to bins representing each C1 to T12 vertebral level. Volumes were normalized, and group comparisons were age-adjusted. RESULTS: There was a trend toward decreased spinal cord volume at the upper cervical levels in PPMS/SPMS versus controls. A trend toward increased spinal cord volume throughout the cervical and thoracic cord in RRMS/CIS versus controls reached statistical significance at the T10 vertebral level. A statistically significant decrease was found in spinal cord volume at the upper cervical levels in PPMS/SPMS versus RRMS/CIS. CONCLUSIONS: Opposing pathologic factors impact spinal cord volume measures in MS. Patients with PPMS demonstrated a trend toward upper cervical cord atrophy. However patients with RRMS showed a trend toward increased volume at the cervical and thoracic levels, which most likely reflects inflammation or edema-related cord expansion. With the disease causing both expansion and contraction of the cord, the specificity of spinal cord volume measures for neuroprotective therapeutic effect may be limited.
Authors: G J Lycklama à Nijeholt; F Barkhof; P Scheltens; J A Castelijns; H Adèr; J H van Waesberghe; C Polman; S J Jongen; J Valk Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1997 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: W Rashid; G R Davies; D T Chard; C M Griffin; D R Altmann; R Gordon; A J Thompson; D H Miller Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Christopher P Gilmore; Gabriele C DeLuca; Lars Bö; Trudy Owens; James Lowe; Margaret M Esiri; Nikos Evangelou Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-12
Authors: Catherine M Dalton; Declan T Chard; Gerard R Davies; Katherine A Miszkiel; Dan R Altmann; Kryshani Fernando; Gordon T Plant; Alan J Thompson; David H Miller Journal: Brain Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Jiwon Oh; Min Chen; Kateryna Cybulsky; Suradech Suthiphosuwan; Estelle Seyman; Blake Dewey; Marie Diener-West; Peter van Zijl; Jerry Prince; Daniel S Reich; Peter A Calabresi Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Adam B Cohen; Mohit Neema; Ashish Arora; Elisa Dell'oglio; Ralph H B Benedict; Shahamat Tauhid; Daniel Goldberg-Zimring; Christian Chavarro-Nieto; Antonella Ceccarelli; Joshua P Klein; James M Stankiewicz; Maria K Houtchens; Guy J Buckle; David C Alsop; Charles R G Guttmann; Rohit Bakshi Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Carlo Asteggiano; Antje Bischof; Tristan J Gundel; Eduardo Caverzasi; William A Stern; Stefano Bastianello; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Winston Liu; Govind Nair; Luisa Vuolo; Anshika Bakshi; Raya Massoud; Daniel S Reich; Steven Jacobson Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Regina Schlaeger; Nico Papinutto; Alyssa H Zhu; Iryna V Lobach; Carolyn J Bevan; Monica Bucci; Antonella Castellano; Jeffrey M Gelfand; Jennifer S Graves; Ari J Green; Kesshi M Jordan; Anisha Keshavan; Valentina Panara; William A Stern; H-Christian von Büdingen; Emmanuelle Waubant; Douglas S Goodin; Bruce A C Cree; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Regina Schlaeger; Valentina Panara; Eduardo Caverzasi; Sinyeob Ahn; Kevin J Johnson; Alyssa H Zhu; William A Stern; Gerhard Laub; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jiwon Oh; Michaela Seigo; Shiv Saidha; Elias Sotirchos; Kathy Zackowski; Min Chen; Jerry Prince; Marie Diener-West; Peter A Calabresi; Daniel S Reich Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 2.486