4.3 Article

Combining clinical and magnetic resonance imaging markers enhances prediction of 12-year disability in multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 51-61

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458516642314

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; magnetic resonance imaging; disability; predictors; brain atrophy; lesions

资金

  1. Czech Ministry of Education and Health [NT13237-4/2012, NT12385-5, PRVOUK-P26/LF1/4, RVO-VFN64165/2012]
  2. Biogen Idec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Disease progression and treatment efficacy vary among individuals with multiple sclerosis. Reliable predictors of individual disease outcomes are lacking. Objective: To examine the accuracy of the early prediction of 12-year disability outcomes using clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters. Methods: A total of 177 patients from the original Avonex-Steroids-Azathioprine study were included. Participants underwent 3-month clinical follow-ups. Cox models were used to model the associations between clinical and MRI markers at baseline or after 12 months with sustained disability progression (SDP) over the 12-year observation period. Results: At baseline, T2 lesion number, T1 and T2 lesion volumes, corpus callosum (CC), and thalamic fraction were the best predictors of SDP (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.7-4.6; p <= 0.001-0.012). At 12 months, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and its change, number of new or enlarging T2 lesions, and CC volume % change were the best predictors of SDP over the follow-up (HR = 1.7-3.5; p <= 0.001-0.017). A composite score was generated from a subset of the best predictors of SDP. Scores of >= 4 had greater specificity (90%-100%) and were associated with greater cumulative risk of SDP (HR = 3.2-21.6; p < 0.001) compared to the individual predictors. Conclusion: The combination of established MRI and clinical indices with MRI volumetric predictors improves the prediction of SDP over long-term follow-up and may provide valuable information for therapeutic decisions.

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

4.3
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