Christina J Azevedo1, Steven Y Cen1, Sankalpa Khadka2, Shuang Liu2, John Kornak3, Yonggang Shi1, Ling Zheng1, Stephen L Hauser4, Daniel Pelletier1. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Department of Neurology, Yale University, New Haven, CT. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Thalamic volume is a candidate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based marker associated with neurodegeneration to hasten development of neuroprotective treatments. Our objective is to describe the longitudinal evolution of thalamic atrophy in MS and normal aging, and to estimate sample sizes for study design. METHODS: Six hundred one subjects (2,632 MRI scans) were analyzed. Five hundred twenty subjects with relapse-onset MS (clinically isolated syndrome, n = 90; relapsing-remitting MS, n = 392; secondary progressive MS, n = 38) underwent annual standardized 3T MRI scans for an average of 4.1 years, including a 1mm3 3-dimensional T1-weighted sequence (3DT1; 2,485 MRI scans). Eighty-one healthy controls (HC) were scanned longitudinally on the same scanner using the same protocol (147 MRI scans). 3DT1s were processed using FreeSurfer's longitudinal pipeline after lesion inpainting. Rates of normalized thalamic volume loss in MS and HC were compared in linear mixed effects models. Simulation-based sample size calculations were performed incorporating the rate of atrophy in HC. RESULTS: Thalamic volume declined significantly faster in MS subjects compared to HC, with an estimated decline of -0.71% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.77% to -0.64%) in MS subjects and -0.28% per year (95% CI = -0.58% to 0.02%) in HC (p for difference = 0.007). The rate of decline was consistent throughout the MS disease duration and across MS clinical subtypes. Eighty or 100 subjects per arm (α = 0.1 or 0.05, respectively) would be needed to detect the maximal effect size with 80% power in a 24-month study. INTERPRETATION: Thalamic atrophy occurs early and consistently throughout MS. Preliminary sample size calculations appear feasible, adding to its appeal as an MRI marker associated with neurodegeneration. Ann Neurol 2018;83:223-234.
OBJECTIVE: Thalamic volume is a candidate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based marker associated with neurodegeneration to hasten development of neuroprotective treatments. Our objective is to describe the longitudinal evolution of thalamic atrophy in MS and normal aging, and to estimate sample sizes for study design. METHODS: Six hundred one subjects (2,632 MRI scans) were analyzed. Five hundred twenty subjects with relapse-onset MS (clinically isolated syndrome, n = 90; relapsing-remitting MS, n = 392; secondary progressive MS, n = 38) underwent annual standardized 3T MRI scans for an average of 4.1 years, including a 1mm3 3-dimensional T1-weighted sequence (3DT1; 2,485 MRI scans). Eighty-one healthy controls (HC) were scanned longitudinally on the same scanner using the same protocol (147 MRI scans). 3DT1s were processed using FreeSurfer's longitudinal pipeline after lesion inpainting. Rates of normalized thalamic volume loss in MS and HC were compared in linear mixed effects models. Simulation-based sample size calculations were performed incorporating the rate of atrophy in HC. RESULTS: Thalamic volume declined significantly faster in MS subjects compared to HC, with an estimated decline of -0.71% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.77% to -0.64%) in MS subjects and -0.28% per year (95% CI = -0.58% to 0.02%) in HC (p for difference = 0.007). The rate of decline was consistent throughout the MS disease duration and across MS clinical subtypes. Eighty or 100 subjects per arm (α = 0.1 or 0.05, respectively) would be needed to detect the maximal effect size with 80% power in a 24-month study. INTERPRETATION:Thalamic atrophy occurs early and consistently throughout MS. Preliminary sample size calculations appear feasible, adding to its appeal as an MRI marker associated with neurodegeneration. Ann Neurol 2018;83:223-234.
Authors: Manish R Sharma; Theodore G Karrison; Yuyan Jin; Robert R Bies; Michael L Maitland; Walter M Stadler; Mark J Ratain Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert Zivadinov; Mari Heininen-Brown; Claudiu V Schirda; Guy U Poloni; Niels Bergsland; Christopher R Magnano; Jacqueline Durfee; Cheryl Kennedy; Ellen Carl; Jesper Hagemeier; Ralph H B Benedict; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Michael G Dwyer Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: R H B Benedict; D Ramasamy; F Munschauer; B Weinstock-Guttman; R Zivadinov Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Stephen L Hauser; Emmanuelle Waubant; Douglas L Arnold; Timothy Vollmer; Jack Antel; Robert J Fox; Amit Bar-Or; Michael Panzara; Neena Sarkar; Sunil Agarwal; Annette Langer-Gould; Craig H Smith Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James Kolasinski; Charlotte J Stagg; Steven A Chance; Gabriele C Deluca; Margaret M Esiri; Eun-Hyuk Chang; Jacqueline A Palace; Jennifer A McNab; Mark Jenkinson; Karla L Miller; Heidi Johansen-Berg Journal: Brain Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Ambica Mehndiratta; Constantina A Treaba; Valeria Barletta; Elena Herranz; Russell Ouellette; Jacob A Sloane; Eric C Klawiter; Revere P Kinkel; Caterina Mainero Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Jiwon Oh; Daniel Ontaneda; Christina Azevedo; Eric C Klawiter; Martina Absinta; Douglas L Arnold; Rohit Bakshi; Peter A Calabresi; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Blake Dewey; Leorah Freeman; Susan Gauthier; Roland Henry; Mathilde Inglese; Shannon Kolind; David K B Li; Caterina Mainero; Ravi S Menon; Govind Nair; Sridar Narayanan; Flavia Nelson; Daniel Pelletier; Alexander Rauscher; William Rooney; Pascal Sati; Daniel Schwartz; Russell T Shinohara; Ian Tagge; Anthony Traboulsee; Yi Wang; Youngjin Yoo; Tarek Yousry; Yunyan Zhang; Nancy L Sicotte; Daniel S Reich Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dejan Jakimovski; Niels Bergsland; Michael G Dwyer; Jesper Hagemeier; Deepa P Ramasamy; Kinga Szigeti; Thomas Guttuso; David Lichter; David Hojnacki; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Ralph H B Benedict; Robert Zivadinov Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2020-02-08 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Caila B Vaughn; Dejan Jakimovski; Katelyn S Kavak; Murali Ramanathan; Ralph H B Benedict; Robert Zivadinov; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 42.937