Kim A Meijer1, Nils Muhlert2, Mara Cercignani3, Varun Sethi4, Maria A Ron4, Alan J Thompson5, David H Miller5, Declan Chard5, Jeroen Jg Geurts6, Olga Ciccarelli5. 1. Department of Anatomy & Neurosciences, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands/NMR Research Unit, Queen Square MS Centre, University College London Institute of Neurology, London, UK k.meijer@vumc.nl. 2. NMR Research Unit, Queen Square MS Centre, University College London Institute of Neurology, London, UK/School of Psychology and Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK/School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3. Clinical Imaging Centre, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK. 4. NMR Research Unit, Queen Square MS Centre, University College London Institute of Neurology, London, UK. 5. NMR Research Unit, Queen Square MS Centre, University College London Institute of Neurology, London, UK/NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK. 6. Department of Anatomy and Neurosciences, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While our knowledge of white matter (WM) pathology underlying cognitive impairment in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) is increasing, equivalent understanding in those with secondary progressive (SP) MS lags behind. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine whether the extent and severity of WM tract damage differ between cognitively impaired (CI) and cognitively preserved (CP) secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients. METHODS: Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion MRI were acquired from 30 SPMS patients and 32 healthy controls (HC). Cognitive domains commonly affected in MS patients were assessed. Linear regression was used to predict cognition. Diffusion measures were compared between groups using tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS). RESULTS: A total of 12 patients were classified as CI, and processing speed was the most commonly affected domain. The final regression model including demographic variables and radial diffusivity explained the greatest variance of cognitive performance (R2 = 0.48, p = 0.002). SPMS patients showed widespread loss of WM integrity throughout the WM skeleton when compared with HC. When compared with CP patients, CI patients showed more extensive and severe damage of several WM tracts, including the fornix, superior longitudinal fasciculus and forceps major. CONCLUSION: Loss of WM integrity assessed using TBSS helps to explain cognitive decline in SPMS patients.
BACKGROUND: While our knowledge of white matter (WM) pathology underlying cognitive impairment in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) is increasing, equivalent understanding in those with secondary progressive (SP) MS lags behind. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine whether the extent and severity of WM tract damage differ between cognitively impaired (CI) and cognitively preserved (CP) secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients. METHODS: Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion MRI were acquired from 30 SPMS patients and 32 healthy controls (HC). Cognitive domains commonly affected in MSpatients were assessed. Linear regression was used to predict cognition. Diffusion measures were compared between groups using tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS). RESULTS: A total of 12 patients were classified as CI, and processing speed was the most commonly affected domain. The final regression model including demographic variables and radial diffusivity explained the greatest variance of cognitive performance (R2 = 0.48, p = 0.002). SPMS patients showed widespread loss of WM integrity throughout the WM skeleton when compared with HC. When compared with CPpatients, CI patients showed more extensive and severe damage of several WM tracts, including the fornix, superior longitudinal fasciculus and forceps major. CONCLUSION: Loss of WM integrity assessed using TBSS helps to explain cognitive decline in SPMS patients.
Authors: Joy M Schmitz; Scott D Lane; Michael F Weaver; Ponnada A Narayana; Khader M Hasan; DeLisa D Russell; Robert Suchting; Charles E Green Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Zafer Keser; Khader M Hasan; Benson Mwangi; Refaat E Gabr; Joel L Steinberg; Jeffrey Wilken; Jerry S Wolinsky; Flavia M Nelson Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: K A Meijer; M Cercignani; N Muhlert; V Sethi; D Chard; J J G Geurts; O Ciccarelli Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Lin Zhao; Angel Ng; Qianyun Chen; Bonnie Lam; Jill Abrigo; Cheryl Au; Vincent C T Mok; Adrian Wong; Alexander Y Lau Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 4.511