Shahamat Tauhid1, Mohit Neema1, Brian C Healy1, Howard L Weiner1, Rohit Bakshi2. 1. Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Laboratory for Neuroimaging Research, Partners MS Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Laboratory for Neuroimaging Research, Partners MS Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: rbakshi@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While disease categories (i.e. clinical phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are established, there remains MRI heterogeneity among patients within those definitions. MRI-defined lesions and atrophy show only moderate inter-correlations, suggesting that they represent partly different processes in MS. We assessed the ability of MRI-based categorization of cerebral lesions and atrophy in individual patients to identify distinct phenotypes. METHODS: We studied 175 patients with MS [age (mean ± SD) 42.7 ± 9.1 years, 124 (71%) women, Expanded Disability Status (EDSS) score 2.5 ± 2.3, n = 18 (10%) clinically isolated demyelinating syndrome (CIS), n=115 (66%) relapsing-remitting (RR), and n = 42 (24%) secondary progressive (SP)]. Brain MRI measures included T2 hyperintense lesion volume (T2LV) and brain parenchymal fraction (to assess whole brain atrophy). Medians were used to create bins for each parameter, with patients assigned a low or high severity score. RESULTS: Four MRI phenotype categories emerged: Type I = low T2LV/mild atrophy [n = 67 (38%); CIS = 14, RR = 47, SP = 6]; Type II = high T2LV/mild atrophy [n = 21 (12%); RR = 19, SP = 2]; Type III = low T2LV/high atrophy [n = 21 (12%); CIS = 4, RR = 16, SP = 1]; and Type IV = high T2LV/high atrophy [n = 66 (38%); RR = 33, S P = 33]. Type IV was the most disabled and was the only group showing a correlation between T2LV vs. BPF and MRI vs. EDSS score (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We described MRI-categorization based on the relationship between lesions and atrophy in individual patients to identify four phenotypes in MS. Most patients have congruent extremes related to the degree of lesions and atrophy. However, many have a dissociation. Longitudinal studies will help define the stability of these patterns and their role in risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: While disease categories (i.e. clinical phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are established, there remains MRI heterogeneity among patients within those definitions. MRI-defined lesions and atrophy show only moderate inter-correlations, suggesting that they represent partly different processes in MS. We assessed the ability of MRI-based categorization of cerebral lesions and atrophy in individual patients to identify distinct phenotypes. METHODS: We studied 175 patients with MS [age (mean ± SD) 42.7 ± 9.1 years, 124 (71%) women, Expanded Disability Status (EDSS) score 2.5 ± 2.3, n = 18 (10%) clinically isolated demyelinating syndrome (CIS), n=115 (66%) relapsing-remitting (RR), and n = 42 (24%) secondary progressive (SP)]. Brain MRI measures included T2 hyperintense lesion volume (T2LV) and brain parenchymal fraction (to assess whole brain atrophy). Medians were used to create bins for each parameter, with patients assigned a low or high severity score. RESULTS: Four MRI phenotype categories emerged: Type I = low T2LV/mild atrophy [n = 67 (38%); CIS = 14, RR = 47, SP = 6]; Type II = high T2LV/mild atrophy [n = 21 (12%); RR = 19, SP = 2]; Type III = low T2LV/high atrophy [n = 21 (12%); CIS = 4, RR = 16, SP = 1]; and Type IV = high T2LV/high atrophy [n = 66 (38%); RR = 33, S P = 33]. Type IV was the most disabled and was the only group showing a correlation between T2LV vs. BPF and MRI vs. EDSS score (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We described MRI-categorization based on the relationship between lesions and atrophy in individual patients to identify four phenotypes in MS. Most patients have congruent extremes related to the degree of lesions and atrophy. However, many have a dissociation. Longitudinal studies will help define the stability of these patterns and their role in risk stratification.
Authors: Subhash Tummala; Tarun Singhal; Vinit V Oommen; Gloria Kim; Fariha Khalid; Brian C Healy; Rohit Bakshi Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2017 May-Jun
Authors: Keren Regev; Brian C Healy; Fariha Khalid; Anu Paul; Renxin Chu; Shahamat Tauhid; Subhash Tummala; Camilo Diaz-Cruz; Radhika Raheja; Maria A Mazzola; Felipe von Glehn; Pia Kivisakk; Sheena L Dupuy; Gloria Kim; Tanuja Chitnis; Howard L Weiner; Roopali Gandhi; Rohit Bakshi Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Brian M Sandroff; Robert W Motl; Cristina A F Román; Glenn R Wylie; John DeLuca; Gary R Cutter; Ralph H B Benedict; Michael G Dwyer; Robert Zivadinov Journal: J Neurol Date: 2022-06-19 Impact factor: 6.682
Authors: Brian C Healy; Guy J Buckle; Eman N Ali; Svetlana Egorova; Fariha Khalid; Shahamat Tauhid; Bonnie I Glanz; Tanuja Chitnis; Charles R G Guttmann; Howard L Weiner; Rohit Bakshi Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 2.486