4.7 Article

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and whole-brain N-acetylaspartate measurement:: Evidence for different clinical cohorts -: Initial observations

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 225, 期 1, 页码 261-268

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2243011260

关键词

magnetic resonance (MR), spectroscopy; sclerosis, multiple

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS37739, NS29029, NS33385] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To quantify the rate of concentration decline of neuronal marker N-acetylaspartate (NAA) in the entire brain of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) in relation to healthy age-matched control subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole-brain NAA (WBNAA) concentration was quantified in 49 patients with relapsing-remitting MS by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and proton MR spectroscopy. It was statistically analyzed by using Spearman rank correlation coefficients to test the intragroup relationship between WBNAA and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and Mann-Whitney analyses to test for differences between subgroups' EDSS scores versus previously published WBNAA values for healthy subjects, disease duration, and age. RESULTS: Analyses indicated three subgroups of WBNAA dynamics: Ten patients' conditions were stable, exhibiting an insignificant change of about 0% (0.02/14.37) per year of clinically definite disease duration (P = .54); 27 patients showed moderate decline, -2.8% (-0.34/12.18) per year (P < .01); and 12 patients experienced rapid decline, -27.9% (-3.39/12.14) per year (P < .01). No correlation was found between WBNAA deficit, EDSS score, and age. CONCLUSION: Ascertaining an individual's NAA concentration dynamics might enable early forecast of disease course, reflect disease severity and thus influence treatment decisions, and improve clinical trial efficiency by allowing selection of candidates on the basis of WBNAA dynamics in addition to clinical status. (C) RSNA, 2002.

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