Mri of the entire spinal cord—worth the while or waste of time? A retrospective study of 74 patients with multiple sclerosis
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Dokumenter
- MRI of the Entire Spinal Cord—Worth the While or Waste of Time? A Retrospective Study of 74 Patients with Multiple Sclerosis
Forlagets udgivne version, 1,72 MB, PDF-dokument
Spinal cord lesions are included in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), yet spinal cord MRI is not mandatory for diagnosis according to the latest revisions of the McDonald Criteria. We investigated the distribution of spinal cord lesions in MS patients and examined how it influences the fulfillment of the 2017 McDonald Criteria. Seventy-four patients with relapsing-remitting MS were examined with brain and entire spinal cord MRI. Sixty-five patients received contrast. The number and anatomical location of MS lesions were assessed along with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). A Chi-square test, Fischer’s exact test, and one-sided McNemar’s test were used to test distributions. MS lesions were distributed throughout the spinal cord. Diagnosis of dissemination in space (DIS) was increased from 58/74 (78.4%) to 67/74 (90.5%) when adding cervical spinal cord MRI to brain MRI alone (p = 0.004). Diagnosis of dissemination in time (DIT) was not significantly increased when adding entire spinal cord MRI to brain MRI alone (p = 0.04). There was no association between the number of spinal cord lesions and the EDSS score (p = 0.71). MS lesions are present throughout the spinal cord, and spinal cord MRI may play an important role in the diagnosis and follow-up of MS patients.
Originalsprog | Engelsk |
---|---|
Artikelnummer | 1424 |
Tidsskrift | Diagnostics |
Vol/bind | 11 |
Udgave nummer | 8 |
Antal sider | 10 |
ISSN | 2075-4418 |
DOI | |
Status | Udgivet - 2021 |
Bibliografisk note
Funding Information:
We would like to thank all the participating patients. Conflicts of Interest: A. Olsson has received support for congress participation from Roche and Novartis. Annette Oturai has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; has received research support from Novartis; has received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, Novartis, and TEVA; and has received support for congress participation from Merck, TEVA, Biogen, Roche, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. S. Gustavsen has received support for congress participation from Merck. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Antal downloads er baseret på statistik fra Google Scholar og www.ku.dk
ID: 276850611