4.5 Editorial Material

Typical linear radial periventricular enhancement in a patient with glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) astrocytopathy

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 2895-2897

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-022-05937-9

关键词

Glial fibrillary acidic protein; Linear radial periventricular enhancement; Antibody and brain immunohistopathology

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82071459]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This is a rare case of corticosteroid-responsive autoimmune meningoencephalomyelitis with linear perivascular gadolinium enhancement, but without anti-GFAP antibodies in the cerebral spinal fluid. Typical MRI findings play an important role in the diagnosis of this disease.
Objective We describe an unusual case of corticosteroid-responsive autoimmune meningoencephalomyelitis with linear perivascular gadolinium enhancement but in the absence of anti- glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) antibodies (ABs) in the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF). Methods The patient's clinical symptoms, brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features, serum and CSF analysis and treatment were reviewed. Results A 47-year-old female experienced a subacute course with bilateral lower limbs weakness, unsteady walking, and dysuria. Brain MRI revealed typical radial perivascular gadolinium enhancement extending from the lateral ventricles to the white matter; MRI spine revealed lesions distributed in the entire spinal cord. Immunohistochemical staining of a brain biopsy revealed CD3+ T cells and CD20+ B cells cuffing around brain vessels, accompanied by CD68+ macrophages. CSF was negative for anti-GFAP ABs while serum was positive for anti-GFAP ABs (1:100). The patient responded well to corticosteroid. Conclusions There are no uniform diagnostic criteria for autoimmune GFAP astrocytopathy. Our case suggested the importance of typical MRI findings in the diagnosis of this rare disease. Early treatments are very important to alleviate symptoms.

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

4.5
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