MRI features suggestive of gadolinium retention do not correlate with Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening in Multiple Sclerosis
- 237 Downloads
Different studies showed correlations between gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) administrations and dentate nucleus (DN) T1-weighted hyperintensity. The clinical impact of gadolinium retention, however, is still largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate relations between MRI and clinical disability in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RR-MS) patients.
In this retrospective study, clinical data were obtained from 74 RR-MS patients at baseline and after a mean follow-up time of 3.6 years, including the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score and its change (ΔEDSS). Patients were considered showing clinical worsening if they score a ΔEDSS ≥ 1 (for baseline EDSS ≤ 5.5) or ΔEDSS ≥ 0.5 (for baseline EDSS > 5.5). From the MRI data, the presence of bilateral DN hyperintensity was recorded along with the calculation of longitudinal relaxation rate (R1) maps.
Patients with DN hyperintensity showed similar ΔEDSS change compared to those without visible changes on T1-weighted images (p = 0.32). Similarly, no DN-R1 difference was found comparing stable patients with those showing a significant clinical worsening (p = 0.54). Finally, no significant effect of DN-R1 values explained the variance in ΔEDSS (p = 0.76), thus suggesting their independence from the clinical outcome.
MS patients with DN hyperintensity show similar EDSS changes compared to subjects without DN high-signal intensity. Furthermore, mean DN-R1 values of patients with significant clinical worsening were comparable to those of stable subjects and were unrelated to clinical disability. Taken together, these findings suggest that gadolinium retention in the brain of MS patients does not affect their clinical worsening, expressed by the EDSS change.
KeywordsGadolinium-based contrast agents Multiple sclerosis GBCA accumulation EDSS
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was received for this study.
Conflict of interest
SC and CR receive speaking fees from Genzyme. MM has received research grants from ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS and Merck.
All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 5.McDonald RJ, Levine D, Weinreb J, Kanal E, Davenport MS, Ellis JH, Jacobs PM, Lenkinski RE, Maravilla KR, Prince MR, Rowley HA, Tweedle MF, Kressel HY (2018) Gadolinium retention: a research roadmap from the 2018 NIH/ACR/RSNA workshop on gadolinium chelates. Radiology 181151:517–534. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2017) 2017 Meeting Materials, Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee. https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/MedicalImagingDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm553470.htm
- 7.Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270(3):834–841. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Roberts DR, Holden KR (2016) Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images in the pediatric brain exposed to multiple doses of gadolinium contrast. Brain and Development 38(3):331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2015.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ramalho J, Castillo M, AlObaidy M, Nunes RH, Ramalho M, Dale BM, Semelka RC (2015) High signal intensity in globus pallidus and dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: evaluation of two linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology 276(3):836–844. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015150872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Robert P, Fingerhut S, Factor C, Vives V, Letien J, Sperling M, Rasschaert M, Santus R, Ballet S, Idee JM, Corot C, Karst U (2018) One-year retention of gadolinium in the brain: comparison of gadodiamide and gadoterate meglumine in a rodent model. Radiology 172746:424–433. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Smith AP, Marino M, Roberts J, Crowder JM, Castle J, Lowery L, Morton C, Hibberd MG, Evans PM (2017) Clearance of gadolinium from the brain with no pathologic effect after repeated administration of gadodiamide in healthy rats: an analytical and histologic study. Radiology 282(3):743–751. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M, Toyoda K, Oba H, Kotoku J, Haruyama T, Kitajima K, Furui S (2015) Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 276(1):228–232. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Murata N, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Murata K, Fligner C, Dills R, Hippe D, Maravilla KR (2016) Macrocyclic and other non-group 1 gadolinium contrast agents deposit low levels of gadolinium in brain and bone tissue: preliminary results from 9 patients with normal renal function. Investig Radiol 51(7):447–453. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Forslin Y, Shams S, Hashim F, Aspelin P, Bergendal G, Martola J, Fredrikson S, Kristoffersen-Wiberg M, Granberg T (2017) Retention of gadolinium-based contrast agents in multiple sclerosis: retrospective analysis of an 18-year longitudinal study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38(7):1311–1316. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Tedeschi E, Palma G, Canna A, Cocozza S, Russo C, Borrelli P, Lanzillo R, Angelini V, Postiglione E, Morra VB, Salvatore M, Brunetti A, Quarantelli M (2016) In vivo dentate nucleus MRI relaxometry correlates with previous administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Eur Radiol 26(12):4577–4584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4245-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, Clanet M, Cohen JA, Filippi M, Fujihara K, Havrdova E, Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Lublin FD, Montalban X, O'Connor P, Sandberg-Wollheim M, Thompson AJ, Waubant E, Weinshenker B, Wolinsky JS (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69(2):292–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Meyer-Moock S, Feng YS, Maeurer M, Dippel FW, Kohlmann T (2014) Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol 14:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-14-58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Uitdehaag BMJ (2018) Disability outcome measures in phase III clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-018-0530-8
- 27.Cohen JA, Khatri B, Barkhof F, Comi G, Hartung HP, Montalban X, Pelletier J, Stites T, Ritter S, von Rosenstiel P, Tomic D, Kappos L (2016) Long-term (up to 4.5 years) treatment with fingolimod in multiple sclerosis: results from the extension of the randomised TRANSFORMS study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 87(5):468–475. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2015-310597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kalincik T, Cutter G, Spelman T, Jokubaitis V, Havrdova E, Horakova D, Trojano M, Izquierdo G, Girard M, Duquette P, Prat A, Lugaresi A, Grand'Maison F, Grammond P, Hupperts R, Oreja-Guevara C, Boz C, Pucci E, Bergamaschi R, Lechner-Scott J, Alroughani R, Van Pesch V, Iuliano G, Fernandez-Bolanos R, Ramo C, Terzi M, Slee M, Spitaleri D, Verheul F, Cristiano E, Sanchez-Menoyo JL, Fiol M, Gray O, Cabrera-Gomez JA, Barnett M, Butzkueven H (2015) Defining reliable disability outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Brain 138(Pt 11):3287–3298. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Palma G, Tedeschi E, Borrelli P, Cocozza S, Russo C, Liu S, Ye Y, Comerci M, Alfano B, Salvatore M, Haacke EM, Mancini M (2015) A novel multiparametric approach to 3D quantitative MRI of the brain. PLoS One 10(8):e0134963. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134963PONE-D-15-18675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Heinrich MC, Kuhlmann MK, Kohlbacher S, Scheer M, Grgic A, Heckmann MB, Uder M (2007) Cytotoxicity of iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents in renal tubular cells at angiographic concentrations: in vitro study. Radiology 242(2):425–434. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2422060245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Akgun H, Gonlusen G, Cartwright J Jr, Suki WN, Truong LD (2006) Are gadolinium-based contrast media nephrotoxic? A renal biopsy study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130(9):1354–1357. https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165(2006)130[1354:AGCMNA]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
- 41.Dimitrova A, de Greiff A, Schoch B, Gerwig M, Frings M, Gizewski ER, Timmann D (2006) Activation of cerebellar nuclei comparing finger, foot and tongue movements as revealed by fMRI. Brain Res Bull 71(1–3):233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar