Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32889535›Full record

ArticleBrain : a journal of neurology2020

Histopathology-validated recommendations for cortical lesion imaging in multiple sclerosis.

Piet M Bouman, Martijn D Steenwijk, Petra J W Pouwels, Menno M Schoonheim, Frederik Barkhof, Laura E Jonkman, Jeroen J G Geurts

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Imaging Outcomes for Phase 2 Trials Targeting Compartmentalized Inflammation.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Decoding Gray Matter Involvement in Multiple Sclerosis via Imaging.Neuroimaging clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Piet M BoumanDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn D SteenwijkDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petra J W PouwelsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Menno M SchoonheimDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laura E JonkmanDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen J G GeurtsDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Neuroscience · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cortical demyelinating lesions are clinically important in multiple sclerosis, but notoriously difficult to visualize with MRI. At clinical field strengths, double inversion recovery MRI is most sensitive, but still only detects 18% of all histopathologically validated cortical lesions. More recently, phase-sensitive inversion recovery was suggested to have a higher sensitivity than double inversion recovery, although this claim was not histopathologically validated. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to provide clarity on this matter by identifying which MRI sequence best detects histopathologically-validated cortical lesions at clinical field strength, by comparing sensitivity and specificity of the thus far most commonly used MRI sequences, which are T2, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery. Post-mortem MRI was performed on non-fixed coronal hemispheric brain slices of 23 patients with progressive multiple sclerosis directly after autopsy, at 3 T, using T1 and proton-density/T2-weighted, as well as FLAIR, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery sequences. A total of 93 cortical tissue blocks were sampled from these slices. Blinded to histopathology, all MRI sequences were consensus scored for cortical lesions. Subsequently, tissue samples were stained for proteolipid protein (myelin) and scored for cortical lesion types I-IV (mixed grey matter/white matter, intracortical, subpial and cortex-spanning lesions, respectively). MRI scores were compared to histopathological scores to calculate sensitivity and specificity per sequence. Next, a retrospective (unblinded) scoring was performed to explore maximum scoring potential per sequence. Histopathologically, 224 cortical lesions were detected, of which the majority were subpial. In a mixed model, sensitivity of T1, proton-density/T2, FLAIR, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery was 8.9%, 5.4%, 5.4%, 22.8% and 23.7%, respectively (20, 12, 12, 51 and 53 cortical lesions). Specificity of the prospective scoring was 80.0%, 75.0%, 80.0%, 91.1% and 88.3%. Sensitivity and specificity did not significantly differ between double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery, while phase-sensitive inversion recovery identified more lesions than double inversion recovery upon retrospective analysis (126 versus 95; P < 0.001). We conclude that, at 3 T, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery sequences outperform conventional sequences T1, proton-density/T2 and FLAIR. While their overall sensitivity does not exceed 25%, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery are highly pathologically specific when using existing scoring criteria and their use is recommended for optimal cortical lesion assessment in multiple sclerosis.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCerebral CortexFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studiescortical lesionsdouble inversion recoverymultiple sclerosisphase-sensitive inversion recoverypost-mortem imaging

Identifiers

PMID32889535
PMCPMC7586087
OpenAlexW3083473212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.