News Paramagnetic Rim Lesions Showing Promise as Diagnostic Marker of MS Paramagnetic Rim Lesions Showing Promise as Diagnostic Marker of MS by Forest Ray PhD | August 24, 2020 Share this article: Share article via email Copy article link Inflammatory lesions within the brain, called paramagnetic rim lesions, visible on imaging scans may improve the accuracy of aĀ multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis, especially when used in combination with other imaging-based biomarkers, a Ā study reported. If corroborated in larger future studies, these white matter lesions may serve as an early diagnostic biomarker. The study, “Paramagnetic Rim Lesions Are Specific To Multiple Sclerosis: An International Multicenter 3T MRI Study,” was published in the journalĀ Annals of Neurology. Accurate and early diagnosis is critical in MS, where certain treatments can offer profound health benefits. Ā But misdiagnoses can run as high as 20%, according to some estimates. Two potential biomarkers that can be measured non-invasively by MRI are brain lesions caused by inflammation, called central vein sign (CVS) and paramagnetic rim lesions (PRL). CVS is gaining acceptance as a biomarker for MS, while how specific PRL ā found in over 50% of MS casesĀ ā is to MS is not well known. An international team of researchers reviewed MRI records covering 329 people with MS and 83 people with non-MS neuroinflammation, looking for how frequently PRL occurred between the two. Of the MS cases, seven were diagnosed withĀ clinically isolated syndrome, 226 withĀ relapsing-remitting MS, and 96 withĀ progressive MS. The researchers detected PRL in 172 MS patients (52%), and in six of the non-MS cases (7%). Among those with MS, at least oneĀ paramagnetic rim lesionĀ was found in 58% of the progressive cases and in 50% of the relapsing cases. The number of these positively correlated with disability severity scores, as measured by the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) ā meaning the higher the number of PRLs, the greater was the patient’s disability level. “[C]asesĀ with ā„4 PRLĀ had higher disability and severity scores, but not significantly longer disease duration or older age,” the researchers wrote.Ā “In addition, they were 1.8-fold more frequently treated with second-line antibody-based therapies than those without PRL.” Although PRL detection appeared highly specific to MS (93% specificity), it did not prove to be highly sensitive (52% sensitivity), meaning that it did not always correctly identify those without MS. By comparison, the specificity and sensitivity of using central vein sign as a diagnostic biomarker were 96% and 99%, respectively. Combining the two biomarkers improved overall specificity to 99%, but sensitivity remained low (59%). Still, the research team notedĀ that this combination might prove useful in two specific scenarios.Ā First, in cases where MS is suspected but MRI finds few CVS lesions. Second, in cases with a high frequency of CVS lesions, but where MS is not suspected. “PRL detection might prove a valuable tool in the differential diagnostic work-up, especially for improving diagnostic specificity,” the researchers wrote. “Future prospective multicenter studies should further validate its role as a diagnostic biomarker.” Print This Page About the Author Forest Ray PhD Forest Ray received his PhD in systems biology from Columbia University, where he developed tools to match drug side effects to other diseases. He has since worked as a journalist and science writer, covering topics from rare diseases to the intersection between environmental science and social justice. He currently lives in Long Beach, California. Tags biomarker, diagnosis, MRI
April 19, 2024 News by Lindsey Shapiro, PhD AAN 2024: Long-term data support early Kesimpta start in relapsing MS
April 18, 2024 Columns by Benjamin Hofmeister Learning how to write a ‘SOAP’ note feels different after an MS diagnosis
April 18, 2024 News by Marisa Wexler, MS AAN 2024: Sustained myelin, nerve cell gains with long-term CNM-Au8