Atrophied Brain T2 Lesion Volume at MRI Is Associated with Disability Progression and Conversion to Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190306

Together with whole-brain atrophy, atrophied brain T2 lesion volume seen with MRI is used to predict multiple sclerosis (MS) disability progression and is the only MRI feature related to conversion of clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS into secondary progressive MS.

Background

Atrophied T2 lesion volume at MRI is an imaging measure that reflects the replacement of T2 lesions by cerebrospinal fluid spaces in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Purpose

To investigate the association of atrophied T2 lesion volume and development of disability progression (DP) and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS).

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included 1612 participants recruited from 2006 to 2016 and followed up for 5 years with clinical and MRI examinations. Accumulation of T2 lesion volume, atrophied T2 lesion volume, percentage brain volume change (PBVC), and percentage ventricular volume change (PVVC) were measured. Disability progression and secondary progressive conversion were defined by using standardized guidelines. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for age and Cox regression adjusted for age and sex were used to compare study groups and explore associations between MRI and clinical outcomes.

Results

A total of 1314 patients with MS (1006 women; mean age, 46 years ± 11 [standard deviation]) and 124 patients with clinically isolated syndrome (100 women; mean age, 39 years ± 11) along with 147 healthy control subjects (97 women; mean age, 42 years ± 13) were evaluated. A total of 336 of 1314 (23%) patients developed DP, and in 67 of 1213 (5.5%) the disease converted from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) to SPMS. Patients with conversion to DP had higher atrophied T2 lesion volume (+34.4 mm3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.2 mm3, 51.5 mm3; d = 0.27; P < .001) and PBVC (−0.21%; 95% CI: −0.36%, −0.05%; d = 0.19; P = .042) but not PVVC (0.36%; 95% CI: −0.93%, 1.65%; d = 0.04; P = .89) or T2 lesion volume change (−64.5 mm3; 95% CI: −315.2 mm3, 186.3 mm3; d = 0.03; P = .67) when compared with DP nonconverters. ANCOVA showed that atrophied T2 lesion volume was associated with conversion from CIS or RRMS to SPMS (+26.4 mm3; 95% CI: 4.2 mm3, 56.9 mm3; d = 0.23; P = .002) but not PBVC (−0.14%; 95% CI: −0.46%, 0.18%; d = 0.11; P = .66), PVVC (+0.18%; 95% CI: −2.49%, 2.72%; d = 0.01; P = .75), or T2 lesion volume change (−46.4 mm3; 95% CI: −460.8 mm3, 367.9 mm3; d = 0.03; P = .93). At Cox regression analysis, only atrophied T2 lesion volume was associated with the DP (hazard ratio, 1.23; P < .001) and conversion to SPMS (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .008).

Conclusion

Atrophied brain T2 lesion volume is a robust MRI marker of MS disability progression and conversion into a secondary progressive disease course.

© RSNA, 2019

Online supplemental material is available for this article.

See also the editorial by Chiang in this issue.

References

  • 1. Reich DS, Lucchinetti CF, Calabresi PA. Multiple Sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378(2):169–180. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17(2):162–173. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Wattjes MP, Rovira À, Miller D, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis—establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11(10):597–606. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Sormani MP, Bonzano L, Roccatagliata L, De Stefano N. Magnetic resonance imaging as surrogate for clinical endpoints in multiple sclerosis: data on novel oral drugs. Mult Scler 2011;17(5):630–633. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Healy BC, Buckle GJ, Ali EN, et al. Characterizing Clinical and MRI Dissociation in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2017;27(5):481–485. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Kearney H, Rocca MA, Valsasina P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging correlates of physical disability in relapse onset multiple sclerosis of long disease duration. Mult Scler 2014;20(1):72–80. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Zivadinov R, Jakimovski D, Gandhi S, et al. Clinical relevance of brain atrophy assessment in multiple sclerosis. Implications for its use in a clinical routine. Expert Rev Neurother 2016;16(7):777–793. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. De Stefano N, Airas L, Grigoriadis N, et al. Clinical relevance of brain volume measures in multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs 2014;28(2):147–156. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Popescu V, Agosta F, Hulst HE, et al. Brain atrophy and lesion load predict long term disability in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84(10):1082–1091. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Bermel RA, Bakshi R. The measurement and clinical relevance of brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2006;5(2):158–170. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Jacobsen C, Hagemeier J, Myhr KM, et al. Brain atrophy and disability progression in multiple sclerosis patients: a 10-year follow-up study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85(10):1109–1115. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Bergsland N, Zivadinov R, Dwyer MG, Weinstock-Guttman B, Benedict RH. Localized atrophy of the thalamus and slowed cognitive processing speed in MS patients. Mult Scler 2016;22(10):1327–1336. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Dwyer MG, Bergsland N, Ramasamy DP, Jakimovski D, Weinstock-Guttman B, Zivadinov R. Atrophied Brain Lesion Volume: A New Imaging Biomarker in Multiple Sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2018;28(5):490–495. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Zivadinov R, Bergsland N, Dwyer MG. Atrophied brain lesion volume, a magnetic resonance imaging biomarker for monitoring neurodegenerative changes in multiple sclerosis. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2018;8(10):979–983. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Zivadinov R, Horakova D, Bergsland N, et al. A Serial 10-Year Follow-Up Study of Atrophied Brain Lesion Volume and Disability Progression in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting MS. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40(3):446–452. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Mahad DH, Trapp BD, Lassmann H. Pathological mechanisms in progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2015;14(2):183–193. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Li DK, Held U, Petkau J, et al. MRI T2 lesion burden in multiple sclerosis: a plateauing relationship with clinical disability. Neurology 2006;66(9):1384–1389. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69(2): 292–302. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 2014;83(3):278–286. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33(11):1444–1452. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Zivadinov R, Heininen-Brown M, Schirda CV, et al. Abnormal subcortical deep-gray matter susceptibility-weighted imaging filtered phase measurements in patients with multiple sclerosis: a case-control study. Neuroimage 2012;59(1):331–339. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Smith SM, Zhang Y, Jenkinson M, et al. Accurate, robust, and automated longitudinal and cross-sectional brain change analysis. Neuroimage 2002;17(1): 479–489. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Gelineau-Morel R, Tomassini V, Jenkinson M, Johansen-Berg H, Matthews PM, Palace J. The effect of hypointense white matter lesions on automated gray matter segmentation in multiple sclerosis. Hum Brain Mapp 2012;33(12):2802–2814. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Vrenken H, Vos EK, van der Flier WM, et al. Validation of the automated method VIENA: an accurate, precise, and robust measure of ventricular enlargement. Hum Brain Mapp 2014;35(4):1101–1110. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Tustison NJ, Avants BB, Cook PA, et al. N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29(6):1310–1320. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Nyúl LG, Udupa JK, Zhang X. New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000;19(2):143–150. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Woolrich MW, et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 2004;23(Suppl 1):S208–S219. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Zivadinov R, Uher T, Hagemeier J, et al. A serial 10-year follow-up study of brain atrophy and disability progression in RRMS patients. Mult Scler 2016;22(13):1709–1718. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Lorscheider J, Buzzard K, Jokubaitis V, et al. Defining secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 2016;139(Pt 9):2395–2405. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Frischer JM, Weigand SD, Guo Y, et al. Clinical and pathological insights into the dynamic nature of the white matter multiple sclerosis plaque. Ann Neurol 2015;78(5):710–721. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Zivadinov R. Can imaging techniques measure neuroprotection and remyelination in multiple sclerosis? Neurology 2007;68(22 Suppl 3):S72–S82; discussion S91–S96. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32. Brown JW, Pardini M, Brownlee WJ, et al. An abnormal periventricular magnetization transfer ratio gradient occurs early in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2017;140(2):387–398. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Liu Z, Pardini M, Yaldizli Ö, et al. Magnetization transfer ratio measures in normal-appearing white matter show periventricular gradient abnormalities in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2015;138(Pt 5):1239–1246. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Magliozzi R, Howell OW, Nicholas R, et al. Inflammatory intrathecal profiles and cortical damage in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2018;83(4):739–755. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35. Vidaurre OG, Haines JD, Katz Sand I, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid ceramides from patients with multiple sclerosis impair neuronal bioenergetics. Brain 2014;137(Pt 8):2271–2286. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36. Kurz J, Parnham MJ, Geisslinger G, Schiffmann S. Ceramides as Novel Disease Biomarkers. Trends Mol Med 2019;25(1):20–32. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37. Czubowicz K, Wójtowicz S, Wencel PL, Strosznajder RP. The role of ceramide and SEW 2871 in the transcription of enzymes involved in amyloid b precursor protein metabolism in an experimental model of Alzheimer’s disease. Folia Neuropathol 2018;56(3):196–205. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38. Jakimovski D, Gandhi S, Paunkoski I, et al. Hypertension and heart disease are associated with development of brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a 5-year longitudinal study. Eur J Neurol 2019;26(1):87–e88. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39. van Waesberghe JH, Kamphorst W, De Groot CJ, et al. Axonal loss in multiple sclerosis lesions: magnetic resonance imaging insights into substrates of disability. Ann Neurol 1999;46(5):747–754. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40. Tam RC, Traboulsee A, Riddehough A, Sheikhzadeh F, Li DK. The impact of intensity variations in T1-hypointense lesions on clinical correlations in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2011;17(8):949–957. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received: Feb 9 2019
Revision requested: Apr 2 2019
Revision received: July 6 2019
Accepted: Aug 9 2019
Published online: Sept 24 2019
Published in print: Nov 2019