BACKGROUND: Cortical lesions (CLs) occur frequently in multiple sclerosis (MS), but only few CLs are observed on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Why some CLs are visible and others are not is currently unknown. Here, we investigated whether CLs that are visible on conventional MRI differ from MRI-invisible CLs in terms of underlying histopathology and quantitative MRI (qMRI) measures. METHODS: A total of 16 brain slices from 10 patients with chronic MS were analysed histopathologically and with conventional and qMRI. A region-of-interest approach was used to compare MRI-visible CLs with MRI-invisible CLs. RESULTS: Although under-powering cannot be completely excluded in this study, MRI-visible CLs did not seem to differ from MRI-invisible CLs in terms of histopathology or qMRI measures. They were, however, significantly larger than their invisible counterparts (mean 13.3 ± 1.7 mm(2) versus 6.9 ± 1.3 mm(2); p = 0.001). Furthermore, the number of MRI-visible lesions correlated with the overall number of CLs in the brain slice (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) and with the overall percentage of demyelination (r = 0.78, p < 0.01) per hemispheric brain slice. CONCLUSION: MRI visibility of CLs is determined by lesion size, and not by any distinctive underlying pathology. Visible CLs are associated with a higher total cortical lesion load, which suggests that when CLs in patients with MS become detectable on MRI, they merely represent 'the tip of the pathological iceberg'.
BACKGROUND: Cortical lesions (CLs) occur frequently in multiple sclerosis (MS), but only few CLs are observed on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Why some CLs are visible and others are not is currently unknown. Here, we investigated whether CLs that are visible on conventional MRI differ from MRI-invisible CLs in terms of underlying histopathology and quantitative MRI (qMRI) measures. METHODS: A total of 16 brain slices from 10 patients with chronic MS were analysed histopathologically and with conventional and qMRI. A region-of-interest approach was used to compare MRI-visible CLs with MRI-invisible CLs. RESULTS: Although under-powering cannot be completely excluded in this study, MRI-visible CLs did not seem to differ from MRI-invisible CLs in terms of histopathology or qMRI measures. They were, however, significantly larger than their invisible counterparts (mean 13.3 ± 1.7 mm(2) versus 6.9 ± 1.3 mm(2); p = 0.001). Furthermore, the number of MRI-visible lesions correlated with the overall number of CLs in the brain slice (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) and with the overall percentage of demyelination (r = 0.78, p < 0.01) per hemispheric brain slice. CONCLUSION: MRI visibility of CLs is determined by lesion size, and not by any distinctive underlying pathology. Visible CLs are associated with a higher total cortical lesion load, which suggests that when CLs in patients with MS become detectable on MRI, they merely represent 'the tip of the pathological iceberg'.
Authors: M Castellaro; R Magliozzi; A Palombit; M Pitteri; E Silvestri; V Camera; S Montemezzi; F B Pizzini; A Bertoldo; R Reynolds; S Monaco; M Calabrese Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael Amann; Athina Papadopoulou; Michaela Andelova; Stefano Magon; Nicole Mueller-Lenke; Yvonne Naegelin; Christoph Stippich; Ernst Wilhelm Radue; Oliver Bieri; Ludwig Kappos; Till Sprenger Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Eldar Eftekhari; Seyed-Parsa Hojjat; Rita Vitorino; Timothy J Carroll; Charles Grady Cantrell; Liesly Lee; Matthew W Taylor; Sarah A Morrow; Haddas Benhabib; Richard I Aviv; Andrea Kassner Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Céline Louapre; Sindhuja T Govindarajan; Costanza Giannì; Christian Langkammer; Jacob A Sloane; Revere P Kinkel; Caterina Mainero Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jan-Mendelt Tillema; Stephen D Weigand; Jay Mandrekar; Yunhong Shu; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Istvan Pirko; John D Port Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: I D Kilsdonk; W L de Graaf; A Lopez Soriano; J J Zwanenburg; F Visser; J P A Kuijer; J J G Geurts; P J W Pouwels; C H Polman; J A Castelijns; P R Luijten; F Barkhof; M P Wattjes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 3.825