Louise A M Otto1, Martijn Froeling2, Ruben P A van Eijk1,3, Fay-Lynn Asselman1, Renske Wadman1, Inge Cuppen4, Jeroen Hendrikse2, W-Ludo van der Pol1. 1. Department of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Biostatistics & Research Support, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Neurology and Child Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative MRI (qMRI) of muscles is a promising tool to measure disease progression or to assess therapeutic effects in neuromuscular diseases. Longitudinal imaging studies are needed to show sensitivity of qMRI in detecting disease progression in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). In this pilot study we therefore studied one-year changes in quantitative MR parameters in relation to clinical scores. METHODS: We repeated quantitative 3 T MR analysis of thigh muscles and clinical testing one year after baseline in 10 treatment-naïve patients with SMA, 5 with Type 2 (21.6 ± 7.0 years) and 5 with Type 3 (33.4 ± 11.9 years). MR protocol consisted of Dixon, T2 mapping and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). The temporal relation of parameters was examined with a mixed model. RESULTS: We detected a significant increase in fat fraction (baseline, 38.2% SE 0.6; follow-up, 39.5% SE 0.6; +1.3%, p = 0.001) in all muscles. Muscles with moderate to high fat infiltration at baseline show a larger increase over time (+1.6%, p < 0.001). We did not find any changes in DTI parameters except for low fat-infiltration muscles (m. adductor longus and m. biceps femoris (short head)). The T2 of muscles decreased from 28.2 ms to 28.0 ms (p = 0.07). Muscle strength and motor function scores were not significantly different between follow-up and baseline. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal imaging data show slow disease progression in skeletal muscle of the thigh of (young-) adult patients with SMA despite stable strength and motor function scores. Quantitative muscle imaging demonstrates potential as a biomarker for disease activity and monitoring of therapy response.
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative MRI (qMRI) of muscles is a promising tool to measure disease progression or to assess therapeutic effects in neuromuscular diseases. Longitudinal imaging studies are needed to show sensitivity of qMRI in detecting disease progression in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). In this pilot study we therefore studied one-year changes in quantitative MR parameters in relation to clinical scores. METHODS: We repeated quantitative 3 T MR analysis of thigh muscles and clinical testing one year after baseline in 10 treatment-naïve patients with SMA, 5 with Type 2 (21.6 ± 7.0 years) and 5 with Type 3 (33.4 ± 11.9 years). MR protocol consisted of Dixon, T2 mapping and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). The temporal relation of parameters was examined with a mixed model. RESULTS: We detected a significant increase in fat fraction (baseline, 38.2% SE 0.6; follow-up, 39.5% SE 0.6; +1.3%, p = 0.001) in all muscles. Muscles with moderate to high fat infiltration at baseline show a larger increase over time (+1.6%, p < 0.001). We did not find any changes in DTI parameters except for low fat-infiltration muscles (m. adductor longus and m. biceps femoris (short head)). The T2 of muscles decreased from 28.2 ms to 28.0 ms (p = 0.07). Muscle strength and motor function scores were not significantly different between follow-up and baseline. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal imaging data show slow disease progression in skeletal muscle of the thigh of (young-) adult patients with SMA despite stable strength and motor function scores. Quantitative muscle imaging demonstrates potential as a biomarker for disease activity and monitoring of therapy response.
Authors: Lara Schlaffke; Robert Rehmann; Marlena Rohm; Louise A M Otto; Alberto de Luca; Jedrzej Burakiewicz; Celine Baligand; Jithsa Monte; Chiel den Harder; Melissa T Hooijmans; Aart Nederveen; Sarah Schlaeger; Dominik Weidlich; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Anders Stouge; Michael Vaeggemose; Maria Grazia D'Angelo; Filippo Arrigoni; Hermien E Kan; Martijn Froeling Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Camiel A Wijngaarde; Marloes Stam; Louise A M Otto; Bart Bartels; Fay-Lynn Asselman; Ruben P A van Eijk; Leonard H van den Berg; H Stephan Goedee; Renske I Wadman; W Ludo van der Pol Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Petra Kaufmann; Michael P McDermott; Basil T Darras; Richard S Finkel; Douglas M Sproule; Peter B Kang; Maryam Oskoui; Andrei Constantinescu; Clifton L Gooch; A Reghan Foley; Michele L Yang; Rabi Tawil; Wendy K Chung; William B Martens; Jacqueline Montes; Vanessa Battista; Jessica O'Hagen; Sally Dunaway; Jean Flickinger; Janet Quigley; Susan Riley; Allan M Glanzman; Maryjane Benton; Patricia A Ryan; Mark Punyanitya; Megan J Montgomery; Jonathan Marra; Benjamin Koo; Darryl C De Vivo Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: S Piepers; L H van den Berg; F Brugman; H Scheffer; M Ruiterkamp-Versteeg; B G van Engelen; C G Faber; M de Visser; W-L van der Pol; J H J Wokke Journal: J Neurol Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: S Lefebvre; L Bürglen; S Reboullet; O Clermont; P Burlet; L Viollet; B Benichou; C Cruaud; P Millasseau; M Zeviani Journal: Cell Date: 1995-01-13 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: E Mercuri; S Messina; R Battini; A Berardinelli; P Boffi; R Bono; C Bruno; N Carboni; C Cini; F Colitto; A D'Amico; C Minetti; M Mirabella; T Mongini; L Morandi; N Dlamini; S Orcesi; M Pelliccioni; M Pane; A Pini; A V Swan; M Villanova; G Vita; M Main; F Muntoni; E Bertini Journal: Neuromuscul Disord Date: 2006-01-20 Impact factor: 4.296
Authors: Jasper M Morrow; Christopher D J Sinclair; Arne Fischmann; Pedro M Machado; Mary M Reilly; Tarek A Yousry; John S Thornton; Michael G Hanna Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Thom T J Veeger; Nienke M van de Velde; Kevin R Keene; Erik H Niks; Melissa T Hooijmans; Andrew G Webb; Jurriaan H de Groot; Hermien E Kan Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 4.478
Authors: Louise A M Otto; Martijn Froeling; Ruben P A van Eijk; Fay-Lynn Asselman; Renske Wadman; Inge Cuppen; Jeroen Hendrikse; W-Ludo van der Pol Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Melissa T Hooijmans; Laura E Habets; Sandra A M van den Berg-Faay; Martijn Froeling; Fay-Lynn Asselman; Gustav J Strijkers; Jeroen A L Jeneson; Bart Bartels; Aart J Nederveen; W Ludo van der Pol Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 4.478