OBJECTIVES: To establish the consistency of the previously reported pattern of muscle involvement in a large cohort of patients with molecularly defined ryanodine receptor type 1 (RYR1)-related myopathies, to identify possible additional patterns, and to compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with clinical and genetic findings. DESIGN: Blinded analysis of muscle MRI patterns of patients with congenital myopathies with dominant or recessive RYR1 mutations and control patients without RYR1 mutations. We compared MRI findings with the previously reported pattern of muscle involvement. SETTING: Data from 3 tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven patients with dominant or recessive RYR1 mutations and 23 controls with other myopathies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each MRI was classified as typical if it was identical to the reported pattern, consistent if it was similar to the reported one but with some additional features, or different. Images with no or few changes were classified as uninformative. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 37 patients with RYR1 mutations had a typical pattern; 13 had a consistent pattern. Two patients had uninformative MRIs and only 1 had a different pattern. Compared with patients with dominant mutations, patients with recessive mutations and ophthalmoparesis had a more diffuse pattern, classified as consistent in 6 of 8. In contrast, 10 of 11 with recessive mutations but without ophthalmoparesis had a typical pattern. All MRIs of 23 control patients were classified as different. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that muscle MRI is a powerful predictor of RYR1 involvement in patients with a congenital myopathy, especially if they carry a dominant mutation or recessive mutations without ophthalmoparesis.
OBJECTIVES: To establish the consistency of the previously reported pattern of muscle involvement in a large cohort of patients with molecularly defined ryanodine receptor type 1 (RYR1)-related myopathies, to identify possible additional patterns, and to compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with clinical and genetic findings. DESIGN: Blinded analysis of muscle MRI patterns of patients with congenital myopathies with dominant or recessive RYR1 mutations and control patients without RYR1 mutations. We compared MRI findings with the previously reported pattern of muscle involvement. SETTING: Data from 3 tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven patients with dominant or recessive RYR1 mutations and 23 controls with other myopathies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each MRI was classified as typical if it was identical to the reported pattern, consistent if it was similar to the reported one but with some additional features, or different. Images with no or few changes were classified as uninformative. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 37 patients with RYR1 mutations had a typical pattern; 13 had a consistent pattern. Two patients had uninformative MRIs and only 1 had a different pattern. Compared with patients with dominant mutations, patients with recessive mutations and ophthalmoparesis had a more diffuse pattern, classified as consistent in 6 of 8. In contrast, 10 of 11 with recessive mutations but without ophthalmoparesis had a typical pattern. All MRIs of 23 control patients were classified as different. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that muscle MRI is a powerful predictor of RYR1 involvement in patients with a congenital myopathy, especially if they carry a dominant mutation or recessive mutations without ophthalmoparesis.
Authors: Carlos Capella-Peris; Mary M Cosgrove; Irene C Chrismer; M Sonia Razaqyar; Jeffrey S Elliott; Anna Kuo; Magalie Emile-Backer; Katherine G Meilleur Journal: Patient Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Claudia P Cejas; Maria M Serra; David F Gonzalez Galvez; Eliana A Cavassa; Ana L Taratuto; Gabriel A Vazquez; Mario E L Massaro; Angeles V Schteinschneider Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-01-19
Authors: Laís Uyeda Aivazoglou; Julio Brandão Guimarães; Thomas M Link; Maria Alice Freitas Costa; Fabiano Nassar Cardoso; Bruno de Mattos Lombardi Badia; Igor Braga Farias; Wladimir Bocca Vieira de Rezende Pinto; Paulo Victor Sgobbi de Souza; Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira; Alzira Alves de Siqueira Carvalho; André Yui Aihara; Artur da Rocha Corrêa Fernandes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephen G Gonsalves; David Ng; Jennifer J Johnston; Jamie K Teer; Peter D Stenson; David N Cooper; James C Mullikin; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Carlos Capella-Peris; Mary M Cosgrove; Irene C Chrismer; Magalie Emile-Backer; M Sonia Razaqyar; Jeffrey S Elliott; Anna Kuo; Paul G Wakim; Katherine G Meilleur Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Florence Martin; Veronika Kana; Andrea Capone Mori; Dirk Fischer; Nicolas Parkin; Eugen Boltshauser; Elisabeth Jane Rushing; Andrea Klein Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 3.183