4.7 Article

T1 lesion load and cerebral atrophy as a marker for clinical progression in patients with multiple sclerosis. A prospective 18 months follow-up study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 37-42

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2001.00147.x

Keywords

atrophy; disability; magnetic resonance imaging; multiple sclerosis; T1-hypointense abnormalities

Funding

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society [491] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the relationship between local tissue destruction, diffuse cerebral atrophy acid clinical progression in patients with established multiple sclerosis (MS), Twenty-nine patients with MS(13 patients with relapsing-remitting and 16 with secondary progressive disease) were included in a prospective serial study. Cerebral volumes, T1 hypointense lesion volumes, T2 hyperintense lesion volumes at baseline and at 18 months follow-up. and the volume of monthly enhancing lesions from month 0 to month 9 were assessed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scans using highly reproducible semiautomated quantitative techniques. The main outcome measures were the MRI parameters and disability on Kurtzkes' Expanded Disability Status Scale. There was a significant correlation between the change (increase) in T1 lesion volume and progressive cerebral atrophy, whereas no correlation between the T2 lesion volume and atrophy was seen over the same Follow-up period. The change in T1 lesion volume correlated more strongly than did T2 lesion volume change with the change in disability. We conclude that hypointense abnormalities detected in T1-weighted brain scans and cerebral atrophy map be directly linked. Although one should bear in mind some potential for reversibility due to inflammatory, oedematous lesions, these MR measures are a useful marker of progressive tissue damage and clinical progression in established MS.

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