Clinical-Radiological Mismatch in Multiple Sclerosis Patients during Acute Relapse: Discrepancy between Clinical Symptoms and Active, Topographically Fitting MRI Lesions.
clinical-radiological mismatch
disease activity
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
multiple sclerosis
relapse
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jan 2023
17 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
26
10
2022
revised:
11
12
2022
accepted:
07
01
2023
entrez:
11
2
2023
pubmed:
12
2
2023
medline:
12
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Relapses in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are usually defined as subacute clinical symptoms that last for at least 24 h. To validate a clinical relapse on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an anatomically fitting lesion with gadolinium enhancement in the central nervous system (CNS) would be mandatory. The aim of this study was to validate clinical relapses in regard to the concomitant detection of active, anatomically fitting MRI lesions. We performed a retrospective analysis of 199 MS patients with acute relapse who had received an MRI scan before the initiation of methylprednisolone (MPS) therapy. Clinical data and MRIs were systematically reanalyzed by correlating clinical symptoms with their anatomical representation in the CNS. Patients were then categorized into subgroups with a clinical-radiological match (group 1) or clinical-radiological mismatch (group 2) between symptoms and active, topographically fitting lesions and further analyzed in regard to clinical characteristics. In 43% of our patients, we observed a clinical-radiological mismatch (group 2). Further analysis of patient characteristics showed that these patients were significantly older at the time of relapse. MS patients in group 2 also showed a significantly longer disease duration and significantly more previous relapses when compared to group 1. Comparing symptom clusters, the appearance of motor dysfunction during the current relapse was significantly more frequent in group 2 than in group 1. The overall dose of MPS treatment was significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1 with a similar treatment response in both groups. The substantial clinical-radiological mismatch during acute relapse in our study could be explained by several factors, including a psychosomatic component or disturbance of network connectivity. Alternatively, secondary progression or a diffuse neuro-inflammatory process might cause clinical symptoms, especially in older patients with a longer disease duration. As a consequence, treatment of clinical relapses and the definition of breakthrough disease should be reconsidered in regard to combined clinical and MRI criteria and/or additional biomarkers. Further studies are necessary to address the contribution of diffuse neuro-inflammation to the clinical presentation of symptoms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Relapses in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are usually defined as subacute clinical symptoms that last for at least 24 h. To validate a clinical relapse on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an anatomically fitting lesion with gadolinium enhancement in the central nervous system (CNS) would be mandatory. The aim of this study was to validate clinical relapses in regard to the concomitant detection of active, anatomically fitting MRI lesions.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a retrospective analysis of 199 MS patients with acute relapse who had received an MRI scan before the initiation of methylprednisolone (MPS) therapy. Clinical data and MRIs were systematically reanalyzed by correlating clinical symptoms with their anatomical representation in the CNS. Patients were then categorized into subgroups with a clinical-radiological match (group 1) or clinical-radiological mismatch (group 2) between symptoms and active, topographically fitting lesions and further analyzed in regard to clinical characteristics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In 43% of our patients, we observed a clinical-radiological mismatch (group 2). Further analysis of patient characteristics showed that these patients were significantly older at the time of relapse. MS patients in group 2 also showed a significantly longer disease duration and significantly more previous relapses when compared to group 1. Comparing symptom clusters, the appearance of motor dysfunction during the current relapse was significantly more frequent in group 2 than in group 1. The overall dose of MPS treatment was significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1 with a similar treatment response in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The substantial clinical-radiological mismatch during acute relapse in our study could be explained by several factors, including a psychosomatic component or disturbance of network connectivity. Alternatively, secondary progression or a diffuse neuro-inflammatory process might cause clinical symptoms, especially in older patients with a longer disease duration. As a consequence, treatment of clinical relapses and the definition of breakthrough disease should be reconsidered in regard to combined clinical and MRI criteria and/or additional biomarkers. Further studies are necessary to address the contribution of diffuse neuro-inflammation to the clinical presentation of symptoms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36769392
pii: jcm12030739
doi: 10.3390/jcm12030739
pmc: PMC9917396
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2021 Jul 29;7(3):20552173211037002
pubmed: 34377529
Brain. 2007 Apr;130(Pt 4):1089-104
pubmed: 17438020
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Nov 18;10(11):
pubmed: 33218056
J Neuroinflammation. 2018 Nov 13;15(1):314
pubmed: 30424780
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2021 Aug 9;8(6):
pubmed: 34373345
N Engl J Med. 2011 Dec 8;365(23):2188-97
pubmed: 22150037
N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 6;365(14):1293-303
pubmed: 21991951
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2010 Nov;109(5):1531-7
pubmed: 20671034
Front Neurol. 2017 Mar 29;8:116
pubmed: 28424654
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Feb;17(2):162-173
pubmed: 29275977
J Neurol Sci. 2007 May 15;256 Suppl 1:S5-13
pubmed: 17346747
N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 4;362(5):402-15
pubmed: 20089954
J Neuroimaging. 2021 May;31(3):471-474
pubmed: 33793026
Innov Clin Neurosci. 2017 Apr 01;14(3-4):38-40
pubmed: 28584696
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Aug;20(8):653-670
pubmed: 34139157
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Apr;11(4):349-60
pubmed: 22441196
J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 25;9(10):
pubmed: 32992918
N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 2;354(9):899-910
pubmed: 16510744
Eur J Neurol. 2021 May;28(5):1617-1626
pubmed: 33426786
Front Immunol. 2019 Jan 10;9:3116
pubmed: 30687321
Front Immunol. 2016 Jan 13;6:657
pubmed: 26793195
Neurology. 2001 Sep 11;57(5):762-8
pubmed: 11552000
Front Neurol. 2018 Oct 11;9:828
pubmed: 30364281
Curr Opin Neurol. 2009 Jun;22(3):214-8
pubmed: 19434770
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 20;367(12):1087-97
pubmed: 22992072
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 19;376(3):221-234
pubmed: 28002679
Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Dec;34(10):1359-1365
pubmed: 27720805
Nature. 2016 Aug 11;536(7615):171-178
pubmed: 27437579
Autoimmun Rev. 2021 Sep;20(9):102893
pubmed: 34237417
Brain. 2021 Apr 12;144(3):833-847
pubmed: 33484118
Cereb Cortex. 2016 Aug;26(8):3508-26
pubmed: 27230218
Clin Immunol. 2018 Apr;189:14-22
pubmed: 27108197
BMC Neurol. 2016 Oct 21;16(1):204
pubmed: 27769199