J Hagemeier1, M Heininen-Brown1, T Gabelic2, T Guttuso3, N Silvestri3, D Lichter3, L E Fugoso3, N Bergsland4, E Carl1, J J G Geurts5, B Weinstock-Guttman3, R Zivadinov6. 1. From the Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center (J.H., M.H.-B., T. Gabelic, N.B., E.C., R.Z.). 2. From the Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center (J.H., M.H.-B., T. Gabelic, N.B., E.C., R.Z.) Department of Neurology (T. Gabelic), Referral Centre for Demyelinating Disease of the Central Nervous System, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. 3. Baird MS Center (T. Guttuso, N.S., D.L., L.E.F., B.W.-G., R.Z.), Department of Neurology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 4. From the Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center (J.H., M.H.-B., T. Gabelic, N.B., E.C., R.Z.) Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (N.B.), Don Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Anatomy and Neurosciences (J.J.G.G.), Section of Clinical Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. From the Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center (J.H., M.H.-B., T. Gabelic, N.B., E.C., R.Z.) Baird MS Center (T. Guttuso, N.S., D.L., L.E.F., B.W.-G., R.Z.), Department of Neurology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York rzivadinov@bnac.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Identifying MRI biomarkers that can differentiate multiple sclerosis patients from other neurological disorders is a subject of intense research. Our aim was to investigate phase WM signal abnormalities for their presence, prevalence, location, and diagnostic value among patients with clinically isolated syndrome and other neurologic disorders and age-, sex-, and group-matched healthy controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients with clinically isolated syndrome and 30 patients with other neurologic diseases and a healthy control group (n = 47) were included in the study. Subjects were scanned at 3T by using SWI-filtered phase and T2WI, with WM signal abnormalities ≥3 mm being classified. RESULTS: Patients with clinically isolated syndrome had significantly more phase and T2 WM signal abnormalities than healthy controls (P < .001). Phase WM signal abnormalities were more prevalent among patients with clinically isolated syndrome compared with patients with other neurologic disorders (4:1 ratio), whereas T2 WM signal abnormalities were more ubiquitous with a 2:1 ratio. The presence of phase WM signal abnormalities was sensitive for clinically isolated syndrome (70.8%) and achieved a moderate-to-high specificity for differentiating patients with clinically isolated syndrome and healthy controls, patients with other neurologic disorders, and patients with other neurologic disorders of other autoimmune origin (specificity, 70%-76.7%). Combining the presence of ≥2 phase lesions with the McDonald 2005 and 2010 criteria for dissemination in space improved the specificity (90%), but not the accuracy, in differentiating patients with clinically isolated syndrome from those with other neurologic disorders. In subanalyses among patients with clinically isolated syndrome who converted to clinically definite multiple sclerosis versus those who did not within a 3-year follow-up period, converters had significantly more phase (P = .008) but not T2 or T1 WM signal abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Phase WM signal abnormalities are prevalent among patients with clinically isolated syndrome. The presence of (multiple) phase WM signal abnormalities tended to be more predictive of conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis and was specific in differentiating patients with clinically isolated syndrome and other neurologic disorders, compared with T2 WM signal abnormalities; however, the accuracy remains similar to that of the current McDonald criteria.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Identifying MRI biomarkers that can differentiate multiple sclerosispatients from other neurological disorders is a subject of intense research. Our aim was to investigate phase WM signal abnormalities for their presence, prevalence, location, and diagnostic value among patients with clinically isolated syndrome and other neurologic disorders and age-, sex-, and group-matched healthy controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients with clinically isolated syndrome and 30 patients with other neurologic diseases and a healthy control group (n = 47) were included in the study. Subjects were scanned at 3T by using SWI-filtered phase and T2WI, with WM signal abnormalities ≥3 mm being classified. RESULTS:Patients with clinically isolated syndrome had significantly more phase and T2 WM signal abnormalities than healthy controls (P < .001). Phase WM signal abnormalities were more prevalent among patients with clinically isolated syndrome compared with patients with other neurologic disorders (4:1 ratio), whereas T2 WM signal abnormalities were more ubiquitous with a 2:1 ratio. The presence of phase WM signal abnormalities was sensitive for clinically isolated syndrome (70.8%) and achieved a moderate-to-high specificity for differentiating patients with clinically isolated syndrome and healthy controls, patients with other neurologic disorders, and patients with other neurologic disorders of other autoimmune origin (specificity, 70%-76.7%). Combining the presence of ≥2 phase lesions with the McDonald 2005 and 2010 criteria for dissemination in space improved the specificity (90%), but not the accuracy, in differentiating patients with clinically isolated syndrome from those with other neurologic disorders. In subanalyses among patients with clinically isolated syndrome who converted to clinically definite multiple sclerosis versus those who did not within a 3-year follow-up period, converters had significantly more phase (P = .008) but not T2 or T1 WM signal abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Phase WM signal abnormalities are prevalent among patients with clinically isolated syndrome. The presence of (multiple) phase WM signal abnormalities tended to be more predictive of conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis and was specific in differentiating patients with clinically isolated syndrome and other neurologic disorders, compared with T2 WM signal abnormalities; however, the accuracy remains similar to that of the current McDonald criteria.
Authors: Nabeela Nathoo; Smriti Agrawal; Ying Wu; Sarah Haylock-Jacobs; V Wee Yong; Tad Foniok; Samuel Barnes; Andre Obenaus; Jeff F Dunn Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Robert Zivadinov; Mari Heininen-Brown; Claudiu V Schirda; Guy U Poloni; Niels Bergsland; Christopher R Magnano; Jacqueline Durfee; Cheryl Kennedy; Ellen Carl; Jesper Hagemeier; Ralph H B Benedict; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Michael G Dwyer Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: M Rovaris; M Holtmannspötter; M A Rocca; G Iannucci; M Codella; B Viti; A Campi; G Comi; T A Yousry; M Filippi Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Emma C Tallantyre; Paul S Morgan; Jennifer E Dixon; Ali Al-Radaideh; Matthew J Brookes; Nikos Evangelou; Peter G Morris Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Gilles Edan; Massimo Filippi; Hans-Peter Hartung; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Luanne M Metz; Henry F McFarland; Paul W O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Brian G Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Christian Enzinger; Frederik Barkhof; Olga Ciccarelli; Massimo Filippi; Ludwig Kappos; Maria A Rocca; Stefan Ropele; Àlex Rovira; Torben Schneider; Nicola de Stefano; Hugo Vrenken; Claudia Wheeler-Kingshott; Jens Wuerfel; Franz Fazekas Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Àlex Rovira; Mike P Wattjes; Mar Tintoré; Carmen Tur; Tarek A Yousry; Maria P Sormani; Nicola De Stefano; Massimo Filippi; Cristina Auger; Maria A Rocca; Frederik Barkhof; Franz Fazekas; Ludwig Kappos; Chris Polman; David Miller; Xavier Montalban Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 42.937