Paola Valsasina1, Maria Assunta Rocca1, Mohammad Ahmad Abdullah Ali Aboulwafa1, Paolo Preziosa1, Frederik Barkhof2, Hugo Vrenken2, Claudio Gobbi3, Chiara Zecca3, Alex Rovira4, Xavier Montalban5, Hugh Kearney6, Olga Ciccarelli6, Lucy Matthews7, Jacqueline Palace7, Antonio Gallo8, Alvino Bisecco8, Achim Gass9, Philipp Eisele9, Carsten Lukas10, Barbara Bellenberg10, Giancarlo Comi11, and Massimo Filippi1
1Neuroimaging Research Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, 2MS Centre Amsterdam, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 3Department of Neurology, Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland, 4Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, 5Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, 6Queen Square MS Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom, 7Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 8MRI Center "SUN-FISM", Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy, 9Universitaetsmedizin Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany, 10St Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany, 11Department of Neurology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
Synopsis
Aims of
this large, multicenter study were to characterize baseline cervical
cord atrophy in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with healthy
controls, and to evaluate the modification of cervical cord cross-sectional
area (CSA) over one-year of follow-up in such patients. Results indicated that
baseline cord atrophy was present in MS patients vs controls, with a differential effect across phenotypes and a
greater severity of atrophy in the progressive forms of the disease. Significant
CSA decrease over time was found in relapsing remitting, primary progressive MS
and in clinically worsened patients.
Purpose
The spinal cord is an
eloquent site of the central nervous system that is frequently involved in multiple
sclerosis (MS). Atrophy of the spinal cord (especially in the cervical segment)
is a well-known feature of MS, which is more severe and correlates with
disability in the progressive forms of the disease [1]. The relative small size
of the spinal cord makes an adequate quantification of cord area a demanding
task, especially in a longitudinal, multicenter context. Previous multicenter
studies showed global atrophy of the cervical cord of MS patients, with a
differential involvement across disease clinical phenotypes [2]. Large,
multicenter studies assessing cord atrophy over time are still scanty. One
preliminary study assessed the upper portion of the cervical cord over two
years of follow-up, and found the highest rate of atrophy in progressive MS
patients and in patients with disability progression [3]. Aim of this study was
to track
the longitudinal evolution of cervical cord atrophy in MS patients with the
main disease clinical phenotypes and its clinical relevance, by analyzing a
large, multicentre dataset acquired
at 9 European sites.Methods
Baseline 3D T1-weighted cervical cord scans were acquired from 167 healthy controls
(HC) and 421 MS patients (36 clinically isolated syndromes [CIS], 202
relapsing-remitting MS [RRMS], 96 secondary progressive MS [SPMS], 45 benign MS
[BMS] and 42 primary progressive MS [PPMS]). Follow-up scans were obtained from
157 subjects (49 HC and 108 MS patients, median follow-up duration=1.1 years,
range=0.5-2.1 years). Based on Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)
score [4] modifications at follow-up, MS patients were classified as clinically stable or worsened. Whole-cervical cord
cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed using an active surface method [5]. Baseline
CSA and its longitudinal changes were compared between HC and MS patients, clinically
worsened and stable patients, and among disease clinical phenotypes using ANOVA
models (adjusted for age, sex and site) and paired t tests. Results
Eight HC and 16 MS
patients were excluded from the analysis because of inadequate cord images
(mainly related to movement artefacts or positioning problems). In all
remaining study subjects, the AS method produced reliable estimates of cervical
cord outlines, also when T1 hypointense lesions were present (Figure 1). Baseline CSA was lower in MS patients vs HC (p<0.001), PPMS vs HC and CIS (p<0.001), RRMS vs CIS (p=0.001), and SPMS vs BMS (p<0.001) and RRMS (p<0.001)
(Figure 2). Longitudinal cord CSA change was +0.01% in HC (p=0.9) and -1.1% in
MS (p=0.001), with a significant time x
group interaction (p=0.04). When clinical phenotypes were analyzed separately,
significant cord tissue loss was found in RRMS and PPMS only (Figure 3). Clinically
worsened MS patients developed significantly higher cord atrophy than
clinically stable MS (Figure 3).Conclusions
The application of the AS method in
a multicenter context allowed a reliable measurement of whole cervical cord
atrophy at high field, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. As previously
demonstrated in a single center study [6],
the AS provided very consistent values of cord CSA in HC over time, thus
ensuring reliability of cord measurements. In line with previous investigations
[7], AS cord outlines were not
influenced by the presence of T1 hypointense lesions.
The baseline results confirm that
cervical cord atrophy contributes to a better characterization of the clinical
heterogeneity of MS. While CIS patients showed a trend towards an increased of
cord CSA, possibly related to inflammation or edema-related cord expansion [8], cord tissue loss was significant
in RRMS, and more severe in progressive than in relapsing MS phenotypes [2]. The longitudinal analysis showed a
significant decrease over time of cord CSA in RRMS and PPMS patients, as well
as in patients with disability progression. This is in line with previous
studies [4, 6] and confirms the clinical relevance
of cord atrophy and its ability to explain clinical worsening. Acknowledgements
Mohammad Aboul-Wafa has
been supported by the ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS Fellowship in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.References
[1] Gass A., et al. Lancet Neurol 2015; 14: 443-454.
[2] Rocca MA, et al. Neurology
2011; 76: 2096-2102.
[3] Lukas C., et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015; 86: 410-418.
[4] Kurtzke J.F. Neurology 1983; 33:1444-52.
[5] Horsfield M.A., et al. Neuroimage 2010; 50: 446-455.
[6] Valsasina P., et al. J Neurol 2015; 262: 1622-1628.
[7] Yiannakas M., et al. Neuroimage Clin 2015; 10: 71-77.
[8] Klein J., et al., Amer J Neuroradiol 2011; 32: 1138-1142.