| Literature DB >> 23967145 |
Tracey A Willis1, Kieren G Hollingsworth, Anna Coombs, Marie-Louise Sveen, Søren Andersen, Tanya Stojkovic, Michelle Eagle, Anna Mayhew, Paulo L de Sousa, Liz Dewar, Jasper M Morrow, Christopher D J Sinclair, John S Thornton, Kate Bushby, Hanns Lochmüller, Michael G Hanna, Jean-Yves Hogrel, Pierre G Carlier, John Vissing, Volker Straub.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcome measures for clinical trials in neuromuscular diseases are typically based on physical assessments which are dependent on patient effort, combine the effort of different muscle groups, and may not be sensitive to progression over short trial periods in slow-progressing diseases. We hypothesised that quantitative fat imaging by MRI (Dixon technique) could provide more discriminating quantitative, patient-independent measurements of the progress of muscle fat replacement within individual muscle groups.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23967145 PMCID: PMC3743890 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070993
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Description of the qualitative muscle grading scale (21).
| Grade | Description |
|
| Normal appearance |
|
| Early moth-eaten appearance with scattered small areas of increased signal |
|
| Late moth-eaten appearance with numerous discrete areas of increased signal with beginning confluence, comprising less than 30% of the volume of the individual muscle |
|
| Late moth-eaten appearance with numerous discrete areas of increased signal with beginning confluence, comprising 30–60% of the volume of the individual muscle |
|
| Washed-out appearance, fuzzy appearance due to confluent areas of increased signal |
|
| End stage appearance, muscle replaced by increased density of connective tissue and fat, with only a rim of fascia and neurovascular tissue distinguishable. |
Median qualitative grades for selected muscles at baseline and at 12 months.
| Muscle | Baseline median grade | 12 month median grade | Number with same/increased/decreased grade | P value |
| GM | 4 | 4 | 25/4/3 | .705 |
| BFLH | 4 | 4 | 29/1/2 | .564 |
| ST | 3 | 4 | 23/4/5 | .739 |
| SM | 3 | 3 | 20/5/7 | .509 |
| BFSH | 2b | 2b | 20/4/5 | .739 |
| SAR | 2b | 2b | 19/8/5 | .405 |
| VM | 2b | 3 | 16/8/8 | .819 |
| GRAC | 2a | 2b | 23/4/5 | .739 |
| VL | 2b | 2b | 17/10/5 | .346 |
| RF | 2a | 2b | 22/6/4 | .527 |
| MG | 2b | 2b | 21/7/4 | .218 |
| LG | 2b | 2b | 18/10/4 | .073 |
| PL | 2b | 2a | 15/7/10 | .655 |
| SOL | 2a | 2b | 23/5/4 | .739 |
| TA | 2a | 2a | 26/3/3 | .739 |
Number of patients with the same, an increased or decreased qualitative grade at the 12 months follow up compared to the baseline grade is given. Non-parametric paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess change.
BFSH was graded in 29 participants. BFSH in 3 subjects could not be graded due to poor visualisation. GM = Gluteus Maximus, BFLH = Biceps Femoris long head, ST = Semitendinosus, SM = Semimembranosus, BFSH = Biceps Femoris short head, SAR = Sartorius, VM = Vastus Medialis, GRAC = Gracilis, VL = Vastus Lateralis, RF = Rectus Femoris, MG = Medial Gastrocnemius, LG = Lateral Gastrocnemius, PL = Peroneus Longus, SOL = Soleus, TA = Tibialis Anterior.
Median values of the fat fractions at baseline and follow up.
| Muscle | Baseline min | Baseline max | Baseline median | 12 month min | 12 month max | 12 monthmedian | Paired diff. (sig) |
|
| 1.5 | 97.3 | 71.6 | 2.2 | 94.4 | 75.2 |
|
|
| 2.3 | 100 | 55.7 | 2.1 | 96.1 | 59.7 |
|
|
| 2.6 | 94.1 | 49 | 2.9 | 95.6 | 54.2 |
|
|
| 2.7 | 78.1 | 25.5 | 4.1 | 82.3 | 24.9 | 0.06 |
|
| 0.85 | 88.9 | 24.2 | 3.4 | 87.5 | 25.3 |
|
|
| 1.1 | 89.1 | 25.6 | 0.8 | 83.5 | 30.9 | 0.065 |
|
| 2.3 | 81.7 | 25.3 | 3.9 | 84.2 | 26.6 |
|
|
| 0.6 | 82.1 | 15.6 | 1.2 | 82.1 | 20.9 |
|
|
| 0.4 | 81.3 | 10.9 | 0.8 | 82.1 | 12.3 |
|
|
| 1.1 | 90.3 | 21.7 | 1.3 | 90.3 | 22.6 |
|
|
| 0.8 | 88.4 | 19.3 | 0.8 | 87.8 | 23.9 |
|
|
| 2.8 | 55 | 15.1 | 3.2 | 61.8 | 14 | 0.896 |
|
| 1.5 | 84.9 | 9.1 | 2.1 | 86 | 10.9 | 0.246 |
|
| 1.4 | 24.6 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 23.5 | 5.2 | 0.627 |
The non-parametric paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test significance.
significant differences between baseline and 12 month follow-up.
possible muscles for future longitudinal analysis; In lower leg; MG, In thigh; SAR, GRAC, VL and RF.
BFLH = Biceps Femoris long head, ST = Semitendinosus, SM = Semimembranosus, BFSH = Biceps Femoris short head, SAR = Sartorius, VM = Vastus Medialis, GRAC = Gracilis, VL = Vastus Lateralis, RF = Rectus Femoris, MG = Medial Gastrocnemius, LG = Lateral Gastrocnemius, PL = Peroneus Longus, SOL = Soleus, TA = Tibialis Anterior.
Figure 1Quantitative fat fraction images of the thigh in LGMD2I patients showing the wide range of severity in fat replacement at baseline, from minimal involvement (a) to sparing of only gracilis and sartorius (e).
Figure 2Quantitative fat fraction differences from baseline to 12 month follow-up.
The box indicates the lower and upper quartiles, with the median change with time represented as the bar within the box. The bars enclose the outliers.
Figure 3Quantitative fat fraction images at baseline in an individual patient (a – mid lower leg level, c – mid thigh level) and at 12 months follow-up (b – mid lower leg level, d – mid thigh level).
Analysis reveals an increase in fat fraction of the medial and lateral gastrocnemius, peroneus longus, vastus lateralis and medialis, semimembranosus, semitendinosus, sartorius and gracilis.
Figure 4Quantitative fat fraction images at baseline in an individual patient (a – mid lower leg level, c – mid thigh level) and at 12 months follow-up (b – mid lower leg level, d – mid thigh level).
Analysis reveals an increase in fat fraction of the lateral and medial gastrocnemius, sartorius, gracilis, semitendinosus, rectus femoris and vastus lateralis.
Minimum, maximum and median values of myometry, timed tests and FVC at baseline and follow-up in 32 paired individuals.
| Muscle | Baseline min | Baseline max | Baseline median | 12 months min | 12 months max | 12 months median | Difference (sig) |
|
| 2.2 | 81.1 | 16.1 | 3.0 | 64.0 | 13.8 | 0.36 |
|
| 1.4 | 86.1 | 18.2 | 5.2 | 78.5 | 13.0 | 0.45 |
|
| 1.6 | 58.9 | 14.1 | 4.0 | 74.8 | 9.1 | 0.11 |
|
| 1.9 | 66.1 | 18.6 | 0.0 | 70.5 | 17.7 | 0.10 |
|
| 4.3 | 156.6 | 26.3 | 4.4 | 142.3 | 20.5 | 0.82 |
|
| 5.6 | 86.3 | 38.0 | 4.0 | 93.6 | 46.0 | 0.16 |
|
| 1.4 | 46.2 | 5.4 | 1.7 | ∞ | 6.4 | 0.08 |
|
| 1.5 | 39.9 | 3.5 | 1.25 | ∞ | 4.5 | 0.24 |
|
| 0.4 | 27.6 | 2.6 | 0.6 | ∞ | 3.3 | 0.55 |
|
| 4.3 | 50.5 | 12.0 | 4.1 | ∞ | 13.8 | 0.96 |
|
| 2.3 | 21.5 | 8.4 | 2.5 | 25.0 | 8.8 | 0.15 |
|
| 67 | 625 | 312 | 50 | 718 | 353 | 0.77 |
|
| 51 | 107 | 81 | 48 | 100 | 76 |
|
|
| 36 | 105 | 71 | 28 | 100 | 66 |
|
Non-parametric paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was used. There was no significant difference found between the results at baseline and at follow up, apart from FVC.
∞ - the maximum time used for the analysis was infinity, to denote patients who were no longer able to do this test. Abd = abduction, Add = adduction, Flex = flexion, Ext = extension, DF = dorsiflexion, TUG = timed up and Go, 6MWD = six minute walk distance, FVC = forced vital capacity.
FVC data from 25 patients.