4.7 Article

Upper cervical cord area in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Cross-sectional study of factors influencing cord size

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 473-476

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20545

Keywords

multiple sclerosis; MRI; cord atrophy; early disease; intracranial volume; gender

Funding

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society [748] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine whether the upper cervical cord area (UCCA) is influenced by disease effect in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), using statistical modeling to account for potential covariates. Materials and Methods: A cohort of 39 patients were studied cross-sectionally within three years of first symptom onset (median disease duration = 1.6 years) and compared with 26 healthy controls. The UCCA was measured from axial reconstructions of three-dimensional T-1-weighted scans with automated detection of the edge of the cord. Statistical analysis adjusted for factors such as total intracranial volume (TICV) and gender. Clinical correlations, in particular those thought likely to be related to cord pathology, were also investigated. Results: No significant disease effect was noted on UCCA (P = 0.685), although there was borderline evidence of a lower UCCA in patients with symptoms of bowel or bladder disturbance (P = 0.043). A strong association was noted between UCCA and TICV (r = 0.558; P <= 0.001). and there was a trend for females to have a smaller UCCA (P = 0.062). The latter finding appeared to reflect a gender-related difference in TICV (P <= 0.001). Conclusion: Atrophy of the upper cervical cord is not readily apparent in most patients early in the course of relapsing-remitting MS. In evaluations of disease-related changes in the UCCA in cross-sectional studies, TICV and gender should be considered as potentially confounding covariates.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available