4.5 Article

Spinal cord lesions and clinical status in multiple sclerosis: A 1.5 T and 3 T MRI study

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 279, Issue 1-2, Pages 99-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2008.11.009

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; MRI; Spinal cord

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R01NS055083-01]
  2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [RG3705A1, RG3798A2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Assess the relationship between spinal cord T2 hyperintense lesions and clinical status in multiple sclerosis (MS) with 1.5 and 3 T MRI. Methods: Whole Cord T2-weighted fast spin-echo MRI was performed in 32 MS patients [Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score (mean +/- SD: 2 +/- 1.9), range 0-6.5]. Protocols at 1.5 T and 3 T were optimized and matched oil voxel size. Results: Moderate correlations were found between whole cord lesion volume and EDSS score at 1.5 T (r(s)=.36, p=0.04), but not at 3 T (r(s)=0.13, p=0.46). Pyramidal Functional System Score (FSS) correlated with thoracic T2 lesion number (r(s)=.46, p=0.01) and total spinal cord lesion number (r(s)=0.37, p=0.04) and volume (r(s)=0.37, p=0.04) at 1.5 T. Bowel/bladder FSS correlated with T2 lesion volume and number in the cervical, thoracic, and total spine at 1.5 T (r(s) 0.40-0.57, all p<0.05). These MRI-FSS correlations were non-significant at 3 T. However, these correlation coefficients did not differ significantly between platforms (Choi's test p>0.05). Correlations between whole cord lesion volume and timed 25-foot walk were non-significant at 1.5 T and 3 T (p>0.05). Lesion number and volume did not differ between MRI platforms in the MS group (p>0.05). Conclusions: Despite the use of higher field MRI strength, the link between spinal lesions and MS disability remains weak. The 1.5 T and 3 T protocols yielded similar results for many comparisons. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available