4.7 Article

Brain metabolic changes suggestive of axonal damage in radiologically isolated syndrome

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 80, 期 23, 页码 2090-2094

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318295d707

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bayer
  2. Dompe
  3. Merck Serono
  4. Novartis
  5. Biogen-Idec
  6. Bayer Schering
  7. Sanofi-Aventis
  8. Biogen Dompe
  9. Italian MS Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The MRI incidental finding in asymptomatic subjects of brain white matter (WM) changes meeting the Barkhof criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) has been recently characterized as the radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS). This entity needs to be more specifically defined to allow risk stratification of these subjects. We used brain proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (H-1-MRSI) to assess metabolic changes in an RIS population. Methods: Twenty-three RIS subjects who were classified according to the Okuda Criteria underwent 1H-MRSI examination with a central brain (CB) volume of interest (VOI) to measure levels of N-acetylaspartate (NAA) and choline (Cho) normalized to creatine (Cr) in the whole CB-VOI, in lesional/perilesional and normal-appearing WM regions, and in the cortical gray matter (CGM). The 1H-MRSI data were compared with those of 20 demographically matched healthy controls (HC). Results: NAA/Cr levels were significantly lower in RIS than in HC in all regions (p < 0.005 for all). No differences in Cho/Cr levels were found in either brain region. A single-subject analysis showed that NAA/Cr levels were at least 2 SDs below the HC mean in the 44% of RIS in the normal-appearing WM and in the 61% of RIS in the CGM. Conclusion: Decreased brain NAA/Cr levels in a group of RIS subjects indicates that brain metabolic abnormalities suggestive of axonal damage can be significant even at this early disease stage. This information could be useful for stratifying RIS individuals with a high risk of progression to MS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据