Background: Diffusion tensor (DT) MRI enables quantification of the severity of brain and cervical cord pathology in multiple sclerosis (MS).
Objective: To investigate DT MRI patterns of cervical cord damage in patients with benign MS (BMS) and secondary progressive MS (SPMS), in order to achieve a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the development of irreversible disability in MS.
Methods: Conventional and DT MRI scans of the cervical cord and brain were acquired from 40 BMS patients, 28 SPMS patients and 18 healthy individuals. Cervical cord and brain mean diffusivity (MD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) maps were created and average MD and FA were calculated. Cross sectional cord area (CSA) was also computed.
Results: 37 (92%) BMS patients and all (100%) SPMS patients had macroscopic cervical cord lesions. Compared with healthy individuals, BMS patients had higher average cord MD while SPMS patients had higher average cord MD, lower average cord FA and lower average CSA. Compared with BMS patients, SPMS patients had lower cord average FA and lower average CSA. In MS patients, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was correlated with CSA (r = −0.47, p<0.0001), average cord FA (r = −0.37, p = 0.002) and brain T2 lesion volume (LV) (r = 0.34, p = 0.005). A multivariate regression model identified CSA, average cord FA and brain T2 LV as variables independently influencing the EDSS score (r = 0.58, p<0.0001).
Conclusions: Cervical cord damage outside focal macroscopic lesions is limited in patients with BMS. The assessment of cord and brain pathology provides complementary information to improve the understanding of disability accumulation in MS.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
See Editorial Commentary, p 4
Funding This study was supported by a grant from FISM (2005/R/18).
Competing interests None.
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Ethics approval The ethics committees of each of the centres involved approved the study.