4.6 Article

Establishing pathological cut-offs of brain atrophy rates in multiple sclerosis

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2014-309903

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (FISM) [2010/R/15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess whether it is feasible to establish specific cut-off values able to discriminate 'physiological' or 'pathological' brain volume rates in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods The study was based on the analysis of longitudinal MRI data sets of patients with MS (n=206, 87% relapsing-remitting, 7% secondary progressive and 6% primary progressive) and healthy controls (HC; n=35). Brain atrophy rates were computed over a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (range 1-12) for patients with MS and 6.3 years (range 1-12.5) for HC with the SIENA software and expressed as annualised per cent brain volume change (PBVC/y). A weighted (on the follow-up length) receiver operating characteristic analysis and the area under the curve (AUC) were used for statistics. Results The weighted PBVC/y was -0.51 +/- 0.27% in patients with MS and -0.27 +/- 0.15% in HC (p<0.0001). There was a significant age-related difference in PBVC/y between HC older and younger than 35 years of age (p=0.02), but not in patients with MS (p=0.8). The cutoff of PBVC/y, as measured by SIENA that could maximise the accuracy in discriminating patients with MS from HC, was -0.37%, with 67% sensitivity and 80% specificity. According to the observed distribution, values of PBVC/y as measured by SIENA that could define a pathological range were above -0.52% with 95% specificity, above -0.46% with 90% specificity and above -0.40% with 80% specificity. Conclusions Our evidence-based criteria provide values able to discriminate the presence or absence of 'pathological' brain volume loss in MS with high specificity. Such results could be of great value in a clinical setting, particularly in assessing treatment efficacy in 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

4.6
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