4.6 Article

Brain lesion distribution criteria distinguish MS from AQP4-antibody NMOSD and MOG-antibody disease

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2016-314005

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK National Specialised Commissioning Team
  2. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [1070/MOB/B/2013/0]
  3. MRC [G0901996] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0901996] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Importance Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) can present with very similar clinical features to multiple sclerosis (MS), but the international diagnostic imaging criteria for MS are not necessarily helpful in distinguishing these two diseases. Objective This multicentre study tested previously reported criteria of '(1) at least 1 lesion adjacent to the body of the lateral ventricle and in the inferior temporal lobe; or (2) the presence of a subcortical U-fibre lesion or (3) a Dawson's finger-type lesion' in an independent cohort of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and AQP4-ab NMOSD patients and also assessed their value in myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG)-ab positive and ab-negative NMOSD. Design Brain MRI scans were anonymised and scored on the criteria by 2 of 3 independent raters. In case of disagreement, the final opinion was made by the third rater. Participants 112 patients with NMOSD (31 AQP4-ab-positive, 21 MOG-ab-positive, 16 ab-negative) or MS (44) were selected from 3 centres (Oxford, Strasbourg and Liverpool) for the presence of brain lesions. Results MRI brain lesion distribution criteria were able to distinguish RRMS with a sensitivity of 90.9% and with a specificity of 87.1% against AQP4-ab NMOSD, 95.2% against MOG-ab NMOSD and 87.5% in the heterogenous ab-negative NMOSD cohort. Over the whole NMOSD group, the specificity was 89.7%. Conclusions This study suggests that the brain MRI criteria for differentiating RRMS from NMOSD are sensitive and specific for all phenotypes.

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

4.6
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