M Castellaro1,2, R Magliozzi2,3, A Palombit1, M Pitteri2, E Silvestri1, V Camera2, S Montemezzi2,4, F B Pizzini4, A Bertoldo1, R Reynolds3, S Monaco1, M Calabrese5. 1. From the Department of Information Engineering (M. Castellaro, A.P., E.S., A.B.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 2. Neurology B (M. Castellaro, R.M., M.P., V.C., S.M., M. Calabrese), Department of Neurological, Biomedical and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Division of Brain Sciences (R.M., R.R.), Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK. 4. Neuroradiology and Radiology Units (S.M., F.B.P.), Department of Diagnostics and Pathology, Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy. 5. Neurology B (M. Castellaro, R.M., M.P., V.C., S.M., M. Calabrese), Department of Neurological, Biomedical and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy massimiliano.calabrese@univr.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantitative susceptibility mapping has been used to characterize iron and myelin content in the deep gray matter of patients with multiple sclerosis. Our aim was to characterize the susceptibility mapping of cortical lesions in patients with MS and compare it with neuropathologic observations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pattern of microglial activation was studied in postmortem brain tissues from 16 patients with secondary-progressive MS and 5 age-matched controls. Thirty-six patients with MS underwent 3T MR imaging, including 3D double inversion recovery and 3D-echo-planar SWI. RESULTS: Neuropathologic analysis revealed the presence of an intense band of microglia activation close to the pial membrane in subpial cortical lesions or to the WM border of leukocortical cortical lesions. The quantitative susceptibility mapping analysis revealed 131 cortical lesions classified as hyperintense; 33, as isointense; and 84, as hypointense. Quantitative susceptibility mapping hyperintensity edge found in the proximity of the pial surface or at the white matter/gray matter interface in some of the quantitative susceptibility mapping-hyperintense cortical lesions accurately mirrors the microglia activation observed in the neuropathology analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Cortical lesion susceptibility maps are highly heterogeneous, even at individual levels. Quantitative susceptibility mapping hyperintensity edge found in proximity to the pial surface might be due to the subpial gradient of microglial activation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantitative susceptibility mapping has been used to characterize iron and myelin content in the deep gray matter of patients with multiple sclerosis. Our aim was to characterize the susceptibility mapping of cortical lesions in patients with MS and compare it with neuropathologic observations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pattern of microglial activation was studied in postmortem brain tissues from 16 patients with secondary-progressive MS and 5 age-matched controls. Thirty-six patients with MS underwent 3T MR imaging, including 3D double inversion recovery and 3D-echo-planar SWI. RESULTS: Neuropathologic analysis revealed the presence of an intense band of microglia activation close to the pial membrane in subpial cortical lesions or to the WM border of leukocortical cortical lesions. The quantitative susceptibility mapping analysis revealed 131 cortical lesions classified as hyperintense; 33, as isointense; and 84, as hypointense. Quantitative susceptibility mapping hyperintensity edge found in the proximity of the pial surface or at the white matter/gray matter interface in some of the quantitative susceptibility mapping-hyperintense cortical lesions accurately mirrors the microglia activation observed in the neuropathology analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Cortical lesion susceptibility maps are highly heterogeneous, even at individual levels. Quantitative susceptibility mapping hyperintensity edge found in proximity to the pial surface might be due to the subpial gradient of microglial activation.
Authors: Tie-Qiang Li; Peter van Gelderen; Hellmut Merkle; Lalith Talagala; Alan P Koretsky; Jeff Duyn Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-07-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kathryn E Hammond; Meredith Metcalf; Lucas Carvajal; Darin T Okuda; Radhika Srinivasan; Dan Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel Pelletier Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Christian Langkammer; Tian Liu; Michael Khalil; Christian Enzinger; Margit Jehna; Siegrid Fuchs; Franz Fazekas; Yi Wang; Stefan Ropele Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Owain W Howell; Cheryl A Reeves; Richard Nicholas; Daniele Carassiti; Bishan Radotra; Steve M Gentleman; Barbara Serafini; Francesca Aloisi; Federico Roncaroli; Roberta Magliozzi; Richard Reynolds Journal: Brain Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Bruce D Trapp; Jerome R Wujek; Gerson A Criste; Walid Jalabi; Xinghua Yin; Grahame J Kidd; Stephen Stohlman; Richard Ransohoff Journal: Glia Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.452
Authors: Bing Yao; Simon Hametner; Peter van Gelderen; Hellmuth Merkle; Christina Chen; Hans Lassmann; Jeff H Duyn; Francesca Bagnato Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mehrnaz Ighani; Samuel Jonas; Izlem Izbudak; Seongjin Choi; Alfonso Lema-Dopico; Jun Hua; Erin E O'Connor; Daniel M Harrison Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Gloria Castellazzi; Laetitia Debernard; Tracy R Melzer; John C Dalrymple-Alford; Egidio D'Angelo; David H Miller; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Deborah F Mason Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Peter Bede; Eoin Finegan; Rangariroyashe H Chipika; Stacey Li Hi Shing; Jeffrey Lambe; James Meaney; Janice Redmond Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 4.003