Background: Monitoring patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) for “no evidence of disease activity” (NEDA) may help guide disease-modifying therapy (DMT) management decisions. Whereas surveillance brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is common, the role of spinal cord monitoring for NEDA is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the role of brain and spinal cord 3T MRI in the 1-year evaluation of NEDA. Methods: Of 61 study patients (3 clinically isolated syndrome, 56 relapsing-remitting, 2 secondary progressive), 56 (91.8%) were receiving DMT. The MRI included brain fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and cervical/thoracic T2-weighted fast spin echo images. On MRI, NEDA was defined as the absence of new or enlarging T2 lesions at 1 year. Results: Thirty-nine patients (63.9%) achieved NEDA by brain MRI, only one of whom had spinal cord activity. This translates to a false-positive rate for NEDA based on the brain of 2.6% (95% CI, 0.1%–13.5%). Thirty-eight patients (62.3%) had NEDA by brain and spinal cord MRI. Fifty-five patients (90.2%) had NEDA by spinal cord MRI, 17 of whom had brain activity. Of the 22 patients (36.1%) with brain changes, 5 had spinal cord changes. No evidence of disease activity was sustained in 48.3% of patients at 1 year and was the same with the addition of spinal cord MRI. Patients with MRI activity in either the brain or the spinal cord only were more likely to have activity in the brain (P = .0001). Conclusions: Spinal cord MRI had a low diagnostic yield as an adjunct to brain MRI at 3T in monitoring patients with MS for NEDA over 1 year. Studies with larger data sets are needed to confirm these findings.
Background: Monitoring patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) for “no evidence of disease activity” (NEDA) may help guide disease-modifying therapy (DMT) management decisions. Whereas surveillance brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is common, the role of spinal cord monitoring for NEDA is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the role of brain and spinal cord 3T MRI in the 1-year evaluation of NEDA. Methods: Of 61 study patients (3 clinically isolated syndrome, 56 relapsing-remitting, 2 secondary progressive), 56 (91.8%) were receiving DMT. The MRI included brain fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and cervical/thoracic T2-weighted fast spin echo images. On MRI, NEDA was defined as the absence of new or enlarging T2 lesions at 1 year. Results: Thirty-nine patients (63.9%) achieved NEDA by brain MRI, only one of whom had spinal cord activity. This translates to a false-positive rate for NEDA based on the brain of 2.6% (95% CI, 0.1%–13.5%). Thirty-eight patients (62.3%) had NEDA by brain and spinal cord MRI. Fifty-five patients (90.2%) had NEDA by spinal cord MRI, 17 of whom had brain activity. Of the 22 patients (36.1%) with brain changes, 5 had spinal cord changes. No evidence of disease activity was sustained in 48.3% of patients at 1 year and was the same with the addition of spinal cord MRI. Patients with MRI activity in either the brain or the spinal cord only were more likely to have activity in the brain (P = .0001). Conclusions: Spinal cord MRI had a low diagnostic yield as an adjunct to brain MRI at 3T in monitoring patients with MS for NEDA over 1 year. Studies with larger data sets are needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: James M Stankiewicz; Bonnie I Glanz; Brian C Healy; Ashish Arora; Mohit Neema; Ralph H B Benedict; Zachary D Guss; Shahamat Tauhid; Guy J Buckle; Maria K Houtchens; Samia J Khoury; Howard L Weiner; Charles R G Guttmann; Rohit Bakshi Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Regina Schlaeger; Nico Papinutto; Valentina Panara; Carolyn Bevan; Iryna V Lobach; Monica Bucci; Eduardo Caverzasi; Jeffrey M Gelfand; Ari J Green; Kesshi M Jordan; William A Stern; H-Christian von Büdingen; Emmanuelle Waubant; Alyssa H Zhu; Douglas S Goodin; Bruce A C Cree; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Eva Havrdova; Steven Galetta; Michael Hutchinson; Dusan Stefoski; David Bates; Chris H Polman; Paul W O'Connor; Gavin Giovannoni; J Theodore Phillips; Fred D Lublin; Amy Pace; Richard Kim; Robert Hyde Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2009-02-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Alasdair J Coles; Cary L Twyman; Douglas L Arnold; Jeffrey A Cohen; Christian Confavreux; Edward J Fox; Hans-Peter Hartung; Eva Havrdova; Krzysztof W Selmaj; Howard L Weiner; Tamara Miller; Elizabeth Fisher; Rupert Sandbrink; Stephen L Lake; David H Margolin; Pedro Oyuela; Michael A Panzara; D Alastair S Compston Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J C J Bot; F Barkhof; C H Polman; G J Lycklama à Nijeholt; V de Groot; E Bergers; H J Ader; J A Castelijns Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-01-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Nancy L Sicotte; Rhonda R Voskuhl; Seth Bouvier; Rochelle Klutch; Mark S Cohen; John C Mazziotta Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Douglas L Arnold; Peter A Calabresi; Bernd C Kieseier; Sarah I Sheikh; Aaron Deykin; Ying Zhu; Shifang Liu; Xiaojun You; Bjoern Sperling; Serena Hung Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2014-12-31 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Regina Schlaeger; Valentina Panara; Alyssa H Zhu; Eduardo Caverzasi; William A Stern; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elena Di Sabatino; Lorenzo Gaetani; Silvia Sperandei; Andrea Fiacca; Giorgio Guercini; Lucilla Parnetti; Massimiliano Di Filippo Journal: J Neurol Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Akram Dastagir; Brian C Healy; Alicia S Chua; Tanuja Chitnis; Howard L Weiner; Rohit Bakshi; Shahamat Tauhid Journal: eNeurologicalSci Date: 2018-07-04