Relationship between paramagnetic rim lesions and slowly expanding lesions in multiple sclerosis

Chronic active lesions; Multiple sclerosis; Volumetric MRI Lesiones crónicas activas; Esclerosis múltiple; Resonancia magnética volumétrica Lesions cròniques actives; Esclerosi múltiple; Ressonància magnètica volumètrica Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers for chronic active lesions...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Calvi, Alberto, Clarke, Margareta Anna, Prados, Ferran, Chard, Declan, Ciccarelli, Olga, Alberich Jordà, Manel, Pareto Onghena, Deborah, Rodríguez Barranco, Marta, Tur Gomez, Carmen, Rovira Cañellas, Alex, Barkhof, Frederik, Sastre Garriga, Jaume
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Chronic active lesions; Multiple sclerosis; Volumetric MRI Lesiones crónicas activas; Esclerosis múltiple; Resonancia magnética volumétrica Lesions cròniques actives; Esclerosi múltiple; Ressonància magnètica volumètrica Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers for chronic active lesions in MS include slowly expanding lesions (SELs) and paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs). Objectives: To identify the relationship between SELs and PRLs in MS, and their association with disability. Methods: 61 people with MS (pwMS) followed retrospectively with MRI including baseline susceptibility-weighted imaging, and longitudinal T1 and T2-weighted scans. SELs were computed using deformation field maps; PRLs were visually identified. Mixed-effects models assessed differences in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score changes between the group defined by the presence of SELs and or PRLs. Results: The median follow-up time was 3.2 years. At baseline, out of 1492 lesions, 616 were classified as SELs, and 80 as PRLs. 92% of patients had ⩾ 1 SEL, 56% had ⩾ 1 PRL, while both were found in 51%. SELs compared to non-SELs were more likely to also be PRLs (7% vs. 4%, p = 0.027). PRL counts positively correlated with SEL counts (ρ= 0.28, p = 0.03). SEL + PRL + patients had greater increases in EDSS over time (beta = 0.15/year, 95% confidence interval (0.04, 0.27), p = 0.009) than SEL+PRL-patients. Conclusion: SELs are more numerous than PRLs in pwMS. Compared with either SELs or PRLs found in isolation, their joint occurrence was associated with greater clinical progression.