Irene Grazzini1, Benedetta Calchetti2, Gian Luca Cuneo3. 1. Department of Radiology, Section of Neuroradiology, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy. irene.grazzini@gmail.com. 2. Department of Cardiology-Neurology, Section of Neurology, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, Vesalio Institute, Grosseto, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Developmental venous anomalies (DVAs) have been found to be more prevalent in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of the study was to compare the prevalence of DVAs in a large population of patients with MS compared with controls and to investigate the correlation of 3D Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) hyperintense signal abnormalities adjacent to DVAs between MS patients and controls having DVAs, as well as DVA potential role in differential diagnosis. METHODS: Between January 2001 and December 2019, 349 patients who met the McDonald criteria for MS diagnosis (249 females, 100 males, age range 18-70 years) were retrospectively included in the study. All patients and 340 age-matched healthy controls had brain MRIs performed on a 1.5 Tesla MR system. Two radiologists reviewed all images to identify DVAs; their presence was compared between the MS and control groups. Among the subjects having DVAs, age, gender, adjacent FLAIR anomalies, and DVA location were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Fifty (14.3%) out 349 patients presented 51 DVAs (35 supratentorial and 16 infratentorial), in comparison to 21/340 (6.2%) controls (P = 0.0005). One patient showed 2 simultaneous DVAs, while 3 patients had coexisting pontine capillary telangiectasias. FLAIR white matter changes adjacent to DVAs were found in 46.2% of patients and in 28.1% of controls (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DVAs demonstrated a higher prevalence in the MS group in comparison to controls. We confirmed the association between DVAs and FLAIR anomalies in MS patients. However, currently there are no evidences that the presence of DVAs may be used in MS differential diagnosis.
PURPOSE:Developmental venous anomalies (DVAs) have been found to be more prevalent in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of the study was to compare the prevalence of DVAs in a large population of patients with MS compared with controls and to investigate the correlation of 3D Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) hyperintense signal abnormalities adjacent to DVAs between MS patients and controls having DVAs, as well as DVA potential role in differential diagnosis. METHODS: Between January 2001 and December 2019, 349 patients who met the McDonald criteria for MS diagnosis (249 females, 100 males, age range 18-70 years) were retrospectively included in the study. All patients and 340 age-matched healthy controls had brain MRIs performed on a 1.5 Tesla MR system. Two radiologists reviewed all images to identify DVAs; their presence was compared between the MS and control groups. Among the subjects having DVAs, age, gender, adjacent FLAIR anomalies, and DVA location were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Fifty (14.3%) out 349 patients presented 51 DVAs (35 supratentorial and 16 infratentorial), in comparison to 21/340 (6.2%) controls (P = 0.0005). One patient showed 2 simultaneous DVAs, while 3 patients had coexisting pontine capillary telangiectasias. FLAIR white matter changes adjacent to DVAs were found in 46.2% of patients and in 28.1% of controls (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DVAs demonstrated a higher prevalence in the MS group in comparison to controls. We confirmed the association between DVAs and FLAIR anomalies in MS patients. However, currently there are no evidences that the presence of DVAs may be used in MS differential diagnosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central nervous system; Developmental venous anomalies; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiple sclerosis; Neuroinflammation
Authors: Nancy Martin; Anthony L Traboulsee; Lindsay Machan; Darren Klass; Tasha Ellchuk; Yinshan Zhao; Katherine B Knox; David Kopriva; Shantilal Lala; Darren Nickel; Robert Otani; Warren R Perera; Alexander Rauscher; A Dessa Sadovnick; Peter Szkup; David K Li Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: G Comi; M A Battaglia; A Bertolotto; M Del Sette; A Ghezzi; G Malferrari; M Salvetti; M P Sormani; L Tesio; E Stolz; P Zaratin; G Mancardi Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Anthony L Traboulsee; Katherine B Knox; Lindsay Machan; Yinshan Zhao; Irene Yee; Alexander Rauscher; Darren Klass; Peter Szkup; Robert Otani; David Kopriva; Shanti Lala; David K Li; Dessa Sadovnick Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrew J Solomon; Matthew K Schindler; Diantha B Howard; Richard Watts; Pascal Sati; Joshua P Nickerson; Daniel S Reich Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: L Danieli; L Roccatagliata; D Distefano; E Prodi; G C Riccitelli; A Diociasi; L Carmisciano; A Cianfoni; T Bartalena; A Kaelin-Lang; C Gobbi; C Zecca; E Pravatà Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Marton Magyar; Thomas Gattringer; Christian Enzinger; Eva Hassler; Richard Partl; Michael Khalil; Gernot Reishofer; Hannes Deutschmann; Franz Fazekas Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 4.003