MRI features suggestive of gadolinium retention do not correlate with Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening in Multiple Sclerosis.
Adult
Aged
Contrast Media
/ pharmacokinetics
Disability Evaluation
Disease Progression
Female
Gadolinium
/ pharmacokinetics
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting
/ diagnostic imaging
Retrospective Studies
EDSS
GBCA accumulation
Gadolinium-based contrast agents
Multiple sclerosis
Journal
Neuroradiology
ISSN: 1432-1920
Titre abrégé: Neuroradiology
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 1302751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
03
12
2018
accepted:
19
12
2018
pubmed:
9
1
2019
medline:
2
2
2019
entrez:
9
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Different studies showed correlations between gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) administrations and dentate nucleus (DN) T1-weighted hyperintensity. The clinical impact of gadolinium retention, however, is still largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate relations between MRI and clinical disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RR-MS) patients. In this retrospective study, clinical data were obtained from 74 RR-MS patients at baseline and after a mean follow-up time of 3.6 years, including the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score and its change (ΔEDSS). Patients were considered showing clinical worsening if they score a ΔEDSS ≥ 1 (for baseline EDSS ≤ 5.5) or ΔEDSS ≥ 0.5 (for baseline EDSS > 5.5). From the MRI data, the presence of bilateral DN hyperintensity was recorded along with the calculation of longitudinal relaxation rate (R1) maps. Patients with DN hyperintensity showed similar ΔEDSS change compared to those without visible changes on T1-weighted images (p = 0.32). Similarly, no DN-R1 difference was found comparing stable patients with those showing a significant clinical worsening (p = 0.54). Finally, no significant effect of DN-R1 values explained the variance in ΔEDSS (p = 0.76), thus suggesting their independence from the clinical outcome. MS patients with DN hyperintensity show similar EDSS changes compared to subjects without DN high-signal intensity. Furthermore, mean DN-R1 values of patients with significant clinical worsening were comparable to those of stable subjects and were unrelated to clinical disability. Taken together, these findings suggest that gadolinium retention in the brain of MS patients does not affect their clinical worsening, expressed by the EDSS change.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30617409
doi: 10.1007/s00234-018-02150-4
pii: 10.1007/s00234-018-02150-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Gadolinium
AU0V1LM3JT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
155-162Références
Neuroimage. 2002 Sep;17(1):479-89
pubmed: 12482100
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006 Apr;21(4):1104-8
pubmed: 16431890
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006 Sep;130(9):1354-7
pubmed: 16948524
Brain Res Bull. 2006 Dec 11;71(1-3):233-41
pubmed: 17113951
Radiology. 2007 Feb;242(2):425-34
pubmed: 17179401
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Jan;30(1):E1
pubmed: 18635615
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Dec;30(6):1240-8
pubmed: 19938036
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Dec;30(6):1259-67
pubmed: 19938038
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
Hum Brain Mapp. 2012 Sep;33(9):2062-71
pubmed: 21882300
Radiology. 2012 Aug;264(2):414-22
pubmed: 22550309
Pancreatology. 2013 Jan-Feb;13(1):88-9
pubmed: 23395575
Radiology. 2014 Mar;270(3):834-41
pubmed: 24475844
BMC Neurol. 2014 Mar 25;14:58
pubmed: 24666846
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Dec;35(12):2215-26
pubmed: 24852287
Radiology. 2015 Jun;275(3):772-82
pubmed: 25742194
Radiology. 2015 Jul;276(1):228-32
pubmed: 25942417
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 01;10(6):e0126835
pubmed: 26030293
Radiology. 2015 Sep;276(3):836-44
pubmed: 26079490
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 May;87(5):468-75
pubmed: 26111826
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 18;10(8):e0134963
pubmed: 26284778
Brain Dev. 2016 Mar;38(3):331-6
pubmed: 26345358
Brain. 2015 Nov;138(Pt 11):3287-98
pubmed: 26359291
ACS Nano. 2015 Dec 22;9(12):12425-35
pubmed: 26567968
Invest Radiol. 2016 Jul;51(7):447-53
pubmed: 26863577
Eur Radiol. 2016 Dec;26(12):4577-4584
pubmed: 26905870
Biometals. 2016 Jun;29(3):365-76
pubmed: 27053146
Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Oct;34(8):1078-80
pubmed: 27211256
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Aug;207(2):229-33
pubmed: 27224028
Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Dec;34(10):1383-1390
pubmed: 27530966
Invest Radiol. 2016 Oct;51(10):661-5
pubmed: 27548344
Radiology. 2017 Mar;282(3):743-751
pubmed: 27673510
Radiol Med. 2017 Aug;122(8):589-600
pubmed: 28361260
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Jul;38(7):1311-1316
pubmed: 28495943
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Jul;16(7):564-570
pubmed: 28653648
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 20;12(12):e0189933
pubmed: 29261786
Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):424-433
pubmed: 29786486
CNS Drugs. 2018 Jun 20;:null
pubmed: 29926371
Radiology. 2018 Nov;289(2):517-534
pubmed: 30204075
Neurol Clin. 1996 May;14(2):291-308
pubmed: 8827172