4.6 Article

Quantitative 7T MRI does not detect occult brain damage in neuromyelitis optica

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000541

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Guthy-Jackson Charitable Foundation
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG Exc 257]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate and compare occult damages in aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-rich periependymal regions in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) vs healthy controls (HCs) and patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) applying quantitative T1 mapping at 7 Tesla (T) in a cross-sectional study. Methods Eleven patients with NMOSD (median Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score 3.5, disease duration 9.3 years, age 43.7 years, and 11 female) seropositive for anti-AQP4 antibodies, 7 patients with MS (median EDSS score 1.5, disease duration 3.6, age 30.2 years, and 4 female), and 10 HCs underwent 7T MRI. The imaging protocol included T2*-weighted (w) imaging and an MP2RAGE sequence yielding 3D T1w images and quantitative T1 maps. We semiautomatically marked the lesion-free periependymal area around the cerebral aqueduct and the lateral, third, and fourth ventricles to finally measure and compare the T1 relaxation time within these areas. Results We did not observe any differences in the T1 relaxation time between patients with NMOSD and HCs (all p > 0.05). Contrarily, the T1 relaxation time was longer in patients with MS vs patients with NMOSD (lateral ventricle p = 0.056, third ventricle p = 0.173, fourth ventricle p = 0.016, and cerebral aqueduct p = 0.048) and vs HCs (third ventricle p = 0.027, fourth ventricle p = 0.013, lateral ventricle p = 0.043, and cerebral aqueduct p = 0.005). Conclusion Unlike in MS, we did not observe subtle T1 changes in lesion-free periependymal regions in NMOSD, which supports the hypothesis of a rather focal than diffuse brain pathology in NMOSD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available