| Literature DB >> 26594620 |
Wendy S Vargas1, Elizabeth Monohan1, Sneha Pandya2, Ashish Raj3, Timothy Vartanian4, Thanh D Nguyen2, Sandra M Hurtado Rúa5, Susan A Gauthier4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Investigating the potential of myelin repair strategies in multiple sclerosis (MS) requires an understanding of myelin dynamics during lesion evolution. The objective of this study is to longitudinally measure myelin water fraction (MWF), an MRI biomarker of myelin, in new MS lesions and to identify factors that influence their subsequent myelin content.Entities:
Keywords: Acute lesion; MRI; Multiple sclerosis; Myelin; Myelin water fraction (MWF)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26594620 PMCID: PMC4589846 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.09.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1Lesion-sized ROI examples. One slice example of the patient lesion ROIs (in blue) aligned onto the Freesurfer T1 average surface. Green line represents the estimated edge of the white matter surface. Red line represents that estimated edge of the pial surface.
Fig. 2HC lesion-sized ROI reproducibility. (A) Scatter plot of mean MWF measurements obtained from 10 WM ROIs in 11 HCs by repeated FAST-T2 scans. The linear regression line and its equation are shown. Both the linear correlation coefficient R squared and the slope of the regression line approach 1.0; indicating a strong agreement between test and retest scans. (B) Bland–Altman plot of the mean ROI measurements obtained from 10 WM ROIs in 11 HCs by test and retest FAST-T2 scans. The red line represents the mean difference between test and retest scans (0.003) and the blue lines indicate the 95% limits of agreement (−0.022–0.027).
Patient and lesion characteristics.
| Age of patient, mean years (±SD) | 32.8 (7.9) |
| Female gender, n (%) | 16 (66.7) |
| Disease duration, mean years (±SD) | 5.3 (5.1) |
| EDSS, mean (±SD) | 1.5 (1.3) |
| Patients with RRMS, n (%) | 20 (86.9) |
| Patients with multiple lesions, n (%) | 12 (50) |
| Number of Gd+ lesions, n (%) | 37 (58.7) |
| Number of Gd(−) lesions, n (%) | 25 (39.6) |
| Number of voxels in Gd+ lesions, mean (range) | 416 (42–19,437) |
| Number of voxels in Gd(−) lesions, mean (range) | 190 (53–627) |
| Age of Gd(−) lesions, mean (range) | 6 (1.5–12) |
| Months between MRI 1 and MRI 2 for Gd+ lesions, median (range) | 6 (3–12) |
| Months between MRI 1 and MRI 2 for Gd(−) lesions, median (range) | 6 (2–12) |
| Average MWF on initial scan for all lesions, mean (±SD) | .065 (.035) |
| Enhancing lesions, mean (±SD) | .052 (.028) |
| Non-enhancing lesions, mean (±SD) | .081 (.033) |
| Average MWF on follow-up scan for all lesions, mean (±SD) | .089 (.036) |
| Enhancing lesions, mean (±SD) | .086 (.032) |
| Non-enhancing lesions, mean (±SD) | .088 (.037) |
Fig. 3MWF change in Gd+ and Gd− lesions.Trajectory of baseline and follow-up MWF values for (A) enhancing and (B) non-enhancing lesions. Enhancing lesions started at lower MWF values and had greater average change than non-enhancing lesions. Green lines: lesions that increased in MWF beyond our reproducibility threshold; red line: a lesion that decreased in MWF beyond our reproducibility threshold; gray lines: lesions that increased or decreased within our threshold.
Fig. 4An example of an enhancing lesion that demonstrated a large improvement in MWF. (A) Baseline T2-FLAIR image and the corresponding MWF map. (B) Follow up T2-FLAIR image and it's corresponding MWF map 6 months later (212% improvement). Partial resolution of the lesion can be appreciated on both the T2-FLAIR and MWF images (inset).