Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 260, Issue 2, pp 397–406 | Cite as

Tract-specific quantitative MRI better correlates with disability than conventional MRI in multiple sclerosis

  • Daniel M. Harrison
  • Navid Shiee
  • Pierre-Louis Bazin
  • Scott D. Newsome
  • John N. Ratchford
  • Dzung Pham
  • Peter A. Calabresi
  • Daniel S. Reich
Original Communication

Abstract

Although diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) have been extensively studied in multiple sclerosis (MS), it is still unclear if they are more effective biomarkers of disability than conventional MRI. MRI scans were performed on 117 participants with MS in addition to 26 healthy volunteers. Mean values were obtained for DTI indices and MTR for supratentorial brain and three white matter tracts of interest. DTI and MTR values were tested for correlations with measures of atrophy and lesion volume and were compared with these more conventional indices for prediction of disability. All DTI and MTR values correlated to an equivalent degree with lesion volume and cerebral volume fraction (CVF). Thalamic volumes correlated with all indices in the optic radiations and with mean and perpendicular diffusivity in the corpus callosum. Nested model regression analysis demonstrated that, compared with CVF, DTI indices in the optic radiations were more strongly correlated with Expanded Disability Status Scale and were also more strongly correlated than both CVF and lesion volume with low-contrast visual acuity. Abnormalities in DTI and MTR are equivalently linked with brain atrophy and inflammatory lesion burden, suggesting that for practical purposes they are markers of multiple aspects of MS pathology. Our findings that some DTI and MTR indices are more strongly linked with disability than conventional MRI measures justifies their potential use as targeted, functional system-specific clinical trial outcomes in MS.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis Diffusion tensor imaging Magnetization transfer ratio MRI Disability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The MRI data was acquired through National MS Society Tissue Repair grant TR3760A3 and through a grant from EMD Serono. Research support was also obtained through NINDS grant K99NS064098 from the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and NINDS grant R01NS070906.

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Calabresi has received research support and consultation fees from EMD Serono. Otherwise, the authors declare no financial relationships with the supporting entities of this study.

Ethical standards

All human studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

Supplementary material

415_2012_6638_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Barkhof F (2002) The clinico-radiological paradox in multiple sclerosis revisited. Curr Opin Neurol 15(3):239–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Filippi M et al (2001) Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 56(3):304–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Filippi M et al (1995) A magnetization transfer imaging study of normal-appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 45(3 Pt 1):478–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Filippi M, Rocca MA, Comi G (1998) Magnetization transfer ratios of multiple sclerosis lesions with variable durations of enhancement. J Neurol Sci 159(2):162–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeBoy CA et al (2007) High resolution diffusion tensor imaging of axonal damage in focal inflammatory and demyelinating lesions in rat spinal cord. Brain 130(Pt 8):2199–2210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song SK et al (2005) Demyelination increases radial diffusivity in corpus callosum of mouse brain. Neuroimage 26(1):132–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang J et al (2009) Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of wallerian degeneration in rat spinal cord after dorsal root axotomy. J Neurosci 29(10):3160–3171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmierer K et al (2007) Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging in postmortem multiple sclerosis brain. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(1):41–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reich DS et al (2009) Damage to the optic radiation in multiple sclerosis is associated with retinal injury and visual disability. Arch Neurol 66(8):998–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giorgio A et al (2010) Relationships of brain white matter microstructure with clinical and MR measures in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 31(2):309–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agosta F et al (2006) Magnetization transfer MRI metrics predict the accumulation of disability 8 years later in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain 129(10):2620–2627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrison DM et al (2011) Longitudinal changes in diffusion tensor-based quantitative MRI in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 76(2):179–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reich DS et al (2010) Automated vs. conventional tractography in multiple sclerosis: variability and correlation with disability. Neuroimage 49(4):3047–3056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ozturk A et al (2010) MRI of the corpus callosum in multiple sclerosis: association with disability. Mult Scler 16(2):166–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shiee N et al (2010) A topology-preserving approach to the segmentation of brain images with multiple sclerosis lesions. Neuroimage 49(2):1524–1535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shiee N et al (2012) Revisiting brain atrophy and its relationship to disability in multiple sclerosis. PLoS ONE 7(5):e37049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33(11):1444–1452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cutter GR et al (1999) Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 122(5):871–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fischer JS et al (1999) The multiple sclerosis functional composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. National MS Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Mult Scler 5(4):244–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rudick R et al (1997) Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol 42(3):379–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baier ML et al (2005) Low-contrast letter acuity testing captures visual dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology 64(6):992–995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balcer LJ, Frohman EM (2010) Evaluating loss of visual function in multiple sclerosis as measured by low-contrast letter acuity. Neurology 74(Suppl 3):S16–S23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henry RG et al (2009) Connecting white matter injury and thalamic atrophy in clinically isolated syndromes. J Neurol Sci 282(1–2):61–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Stefano N et al (2002) MR correlates of cerebral atrophy in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 249(8):1072–1077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petzold A, Tozer DJ, Schmierer K (2011) Axonal damage in the making: neurofilament phosphorylation, proton mobility and magnetisation transfer in multiple sclerosis normal appearing white matter. Exp Neurol 232(2):234–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pulizzi A et al (2007) Determinants of disability in multiple sclerosis at various disease stages: a multiparametric magnetic resonance study. Arch Neurol 64(8):1163–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ceccarelli A et al (2007) Normal-appearing white and grey matter damage in MS. A volumetric and diffusion tensor MRI study at 3.0 Tesla. J Neurol 254(4):513–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vrenken H et al (2010) Diffusely abnormal white matter in progressive multiple sclerosis: in vivo quantitative MR imaging characterization and comparison between disease types. Am J Neuroradiol 31(3):541–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsunoda I et al (2003) Axonal injury heralds virus-induced demyelination. Am J Pathol 162(4):1259–1269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trapp BD et al (1998) Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 338(5):278–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bodini B et al (2009) Exploring the relationship between white matter and gray matter damage in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis: an in vivo study with TBSS and VBM. Hum Brain Mapp 30(9):2852–2861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van den Elskamp IJ et al (2010) Lesional magnetization transfer ratio: a feasible outcome for remyelinating treatment trials in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 16(6):660–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fox RJ et al (2011) Measuring myelin repair and axonal loss with diffusion tensor imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 32(1):85–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fink F et al (2010) Comparison of diffusion tensor-based tractography and quantified brain atrophy for analyzing demyelination and axonal loss in MS. J Neuroimaging 20(4):334–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Preziosa P et al (2011) Intrinsic damage to the major white matter tracts in patients with different clinical phenotypes of multiple sclerosis: a voxelwise diffusion-tensor MR study. Radiology 260(2):540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel M. Harrison
    • 1
  • Navid Shiee
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pierre-Louis Bazin
    • 5
  • Scott D. Newsome
    • 1
  • John N. Ratchford
    • 1
  • Dzung Pham
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  • Peter A. Calabresi
    • 1
  • Daniel S. Reich
    • 1
    • 4
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Radiology and Imaging SciencesNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Radiology and Radiologic ScienceJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Department of NeurophysicsMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany
  6. 6.Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative MedicineThe Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military MedicineBethesdaUSA
  7. 7.Neuroimmunology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations