Diagnostic Performance of Cortical Lesions and the Central Vein Sign in Multiple Sclerosis.
Journal
JAMA neurology
ISSN: 2168-6157
Titre abrégé: JAMA Neurol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Dec 2023
11 Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
11
12
2023
pubmed:
11
12
2023
entrez:
11
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Multiple sclerosis (MS) misdiagnosis remains an important issue in clinical practice. To quantify the performance of cortical lesions (CLs) and central vein sign (CVS) in distinguishing MS from other conditions showing brain lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This was a retrospective, cross-sectional multicenter study, with clinical and MRI data acquired between January 2010 and May 2020. Centralized MRI analysis was conducted between July 2020 and December 2022 by 2 raters blinded to participants' diagnosis. Participants were recruited from 14 European centers and from a multicenter pan-European cohort. Eligible participants had a diagnosis of MS, clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), or non-MS conditions; availability of a brain 3-T MRI scan with at least 1 sequence suitable for CL and CVS assessment; presence of T2-hyperintense white matter lesions (WMLs). A total of 1051 individuals were included with either MS/CIS (n = 599; 386 [64.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 41.5 [12.3] years) or non-MS conditions (including other neuroinflammatory disorders, cerebrovascular disease, migraine, and incidental WMLs in healthy control individuals; n = 452; 302 [66.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 49.2 [14.5] years). Five individuals were excluded due to missing clinical or demographic information (n = 3) or unclear diagnosis (n = 2). MS/CIS vs non-MS conditions. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to explore the diagnostic performance of CLs and the CVS in isolation and in combination; sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for various cutoffs. The diagnostic importance of CLs and CVS compared to conventional MRI features (ie, presence of infratentorial, periventricular, and juxtacortical WMLs) was ranked with a random forest model. The presence of CLs and the previously proposed 40% CVS rule had a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for MS of 59.0% (95% CI, 55.1-62.8), 93.6% (95% CI, 91.4-95.6), and 73.9% (95% CI, 71.6-76.3) and 78.7% (95% CI, 75.5-82.0), 86.0% (95% CI, 82.1-89.5), and 81.5% (95% CI, 78.9-83.7), respectively. The diagnostic performance of the CVS (AUC, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.86-0.91]) was superior to that of CLs (AUC, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.80]; P < .001), and was increased when combining the 2 imaging markers (AUC, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.94]; P = .04); in the random forest model, both CVS and CLs outperformed the presence of infratentorial, periventricular, and juxtacortical WMLs in supporting MS differential diagnosis. The findings in this study suggest that CVS and CLs may be valuable tools to increase the accuracy of MS diagnosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38079177
pii: 2812783
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.4737
pmc: PMC10714285
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Investigateurs
Jaume Sastre-Garriga
(J)
Claudio Gasperini
(C)
Hugo Vrenken
(H)
Tarek Yousry
(T)
Références
Neuroimage Clin. 2021;32:102834
pubmed: 34592690
Mult Scler. 2021 Jun;27(7):1057-1065
pubmed: 32749948
Nat Rev Neurol. 2016 Dec;12(12):714-722
pubmed: 27834394
Mult Scler. 2008 Nov;14(9):1214-9
pubmed: 18952832
Neurology. 2018 Apr 3;90(14):e1183-e1190
pubmed: 29514948
Mult Scler. 2022 Aug;28(9):1351-1363
pubmed: 35142571
Neurology. 2023 Jan 17;100(3):e308-e323
pubmed: 36192175
Neurology. 2010 Nov 30;75(22):1988-94
pubmed: 21115953
JAMA Neurol. 2018 Nov 1;75(11):1392-1398
pubmed: 30083703
Mult Scler. 2016 Sep;22(10):1289-96
pubmed: 26658816
Neurology. 2019 Jan 1;92(1):26-33
pubmed: 30381369
Neurology. 2022 Jan 4;98(1):e1-e14
pubmed: 34716250
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Nov 29;10(12):
pubmed: 33260401
Acta Neurol Scand. 2022 Mar;145(3):279-287
pubmed: 34796472
JAMA Neurol. 2023 Jul 1;80(7):657-658
pubmed: 37067820
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012 Sep;83(9):877-82
pubmed: 22807559
Neurology. 2010 Oct 5;75(14):1234-40
pubmed: 20739644
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2003 Jul;62(7):723-32
pubmed: 12901699
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
J Neurol. 2014 Jul;261(7):1356-64
pubmed: 24777693
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Feb;17(2):162-173
pubmed: 29275977
Neurology. 2015 Jul 14;85(2):177-89
pubmed: 26092914
Acta Neuropathol. 2017 Jan;133(1):25-42
pubmed: 27796537
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Mar;89(3):316-318
pubmed: 28724720
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Aug;20(8):653-670
pubmed: 34139157
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 19;8(12):e021017
pubmed: 30782589
Mult Scler. 2021 Feb;27(2):250-258
pubmed: 32162581
N Engl J Med. 2011 Dec 8;365(23):2188-97
pubmed: 22150037
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Dec 1;76(12):1474-1483
pubmed: 31403674
Invest Radiol. 2012 Jun;47(6):346-52
pubmed: 22543966
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Dec 1;76(12):1446-1456
pubmed: 31424490
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 May;30:51-56
pubmed: 30738280
Brain. 2019 Jul 1;142(7):1858-1875
pubmed: 31209474
Neurology. 2011 Feb 1;76(5):418-24
pubmed: 21209373