Bildmorphologie der Multiplen Sklerose als inflammatorische und degenerative Erkrankung: Diagnosesicherung und Heterogenität im Krankheitsverlauf

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Eine effiziente Therapie der MS erfordert eine schnelle und zuverlässige Diagnose der Erkrankung. Die MRT ist die maßgebliche paraklinische Untersuchung für die Diagnosestellung. Auch wenn es keinen pathognomischen Befund für MS in der MRT gibt, so lassen sich doch MS-typische Morphologien und Lokalisationen herausarbeiten. Die MRT-Kriterien für die Diagnosestellung werden immer praktikabler und übersichtlicher für die klinische Routine, gleichzeitig konnte sowohl die Spezifität als auch Sensitivität verbessert werden. Neben den revidierten McDonald-Kriterien werden neue Kriterien vorgestellt, in denen eine Kontrastmittelgabe nicht zwingend erforderlich ist. Das Kontrastmittelverhalten gibt Möglichkeiten zur Differenzierung zu nichtentzündlichen Differenzialdiagnosen, zeigt aber auch innerhalb der MS unterschiedliche Charakteristika. Die Kriterien zur Erfüllung der räumlichen und zeitlichen Dissemination wurden vereinfacht. Es werden unterschiedliche Pathomechanismen der Erkrankung postuliert, die erwarten lassen, dass sich die große Gruppe der MS-Patienten in Subgruppen unterteilen lässt. Die beiden Hauptkomponenten der Erkrankung, die bildmorphologisch erkennbar sind, aber auch einen unterschiedlichen klinischen Verlauf nehmen, sind Inflammation und Neurodegeneration. Beide Faktoren sind miteinander verknüpft, haben aber auch eine unabhängige Komponente. Es wird eine Stratifizierung vorgestellt, die von verschiedenen zugrunde liegenden Pathomechanismen für die zwei bildmorphologisch fassbaren Hauptkomponenten ausgeht und so eine Subgruppierung in der MR-Bildgebung ermöglicht. Bisherige und bleibende Fragestellung an die MRT bei MS ist die Bearbeitung der MRT-Kriterien zur Diagnosestellung. Eine neue zukünftige Fragestellung an die MRT wird die Heterogenität bzw. Einteilung in Subtypen sein. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über beide Fragestellungen.

Abstract

An efficient therapy of MS requires a quick and reliable diagnosis of the disease. MRI is the most leading paraclinical examination for MS diagnosis. Even though there is no pathognomic finding in MRI, there are MS characteristics with respect to morphology and localization. To exclude other neurological disorders and distinguish between different characteristics within MS, the use of contrast agent is advantageous. Postulated MRI criteria have been increasingly adjusted to the clinical routine and have become clearer, more sensitive, and more specific. Different imaging criteria will be introduced. In addition to the McDonald criteria of 2001 and 2005, new criteria will be presented in which the use of contrast agent is replaced by a second MRI and the dissemination in time and space is simplified. Different pathomechanisms which help to separate MS patients into subgroups are postulated. The diverse pathomechanisms also enable the development of new pharmaceuticals to manipulate the immunologic course in different stages. For varying therapy approaches, it is increasingly important to differentiate the heterogeneous appearance forms into subtypes. The two visible main components of the disorder in MRI are inflammation and neurodegeneration and are responsible for different clinical courses. Both are interdependent and independent of each other. We introduce a stratification which uses both components as a function of their different outcomes to compose subgroups. The previous challenge with respect to MRI was to support the diagnosis of MS via MRI criteria. A future problem will be the heterogeneity and classification of subgroups. This article gives an overview of both problems.

Literatur

• 1 Rieckmann P. Escalating immunomodulatory therapy of multiple sclerosis: Update (September 2006).  Nervenarzt. 2006;  77 1506-1518
  Google Scholar
• 2 Paty D W, Oger J J, Kastrukoff L F. et al . MRI in the diagnosis of MS: a prospective study with comparison of clinical evaluation, evoked potentials, oligoclonal banding, and CT.  Neurology. 1988;  38 180-185
  Google Scholar
• 3 Filippi M, Dousset V, McFarland H F. et al . Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple sclerosis: consensus report of the White Matter Study Group.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;  15 499-504
  Google Scholar
• 4 Miller D H, Filippi M, Fazekas F. et al . Role of magnetic resonance imaging within diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis.  Ann Neurol. 2004;  56 273-278
  Google Scholar
• 5 Bielekova B, Kadom N, Fisher E. et al . MRI as a marker for disease heterogeneity in multiple sclerosis.  Neurology. 2005;  65 1071-1076
  Google Scholar
• 6 Blevins G, Martin R. Future immunotherapies in multiple sclerosis.  Semin Neurol. 2003;  23 147-158
  Google Scholar
• 7 Lucchinetti C, Bruck W, Parisi J. et al . Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination.  Ann Neurol. 2000;  47 707-717
  Google Scholar
• 8 Gass A, Radu E W, Filippi M. et al . MRI follow-up in multiple sclerosis. A guideline for quality assurance.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 1999;  170 581-586
  Google Scholar
• 9 Swanton J K, Rovira A, Tintore M. et al . MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis in patients presenting with clinically isolated syndromes: a multicentre retrospective study.  Lancet Neurol. 2007;  6 677-686
  Google Scholar
• 10 Genain C P, Cannella B, Hauser S L. et al . Identification of autoantibodies associated with myelin damage in multiple sclerosis.  Nat Med. 1999;  5 170-175
  Google Scholar
• 11 Tan I L, Schijndel R A, Pouwels P J. et al . MR venography of multiple sclerosis.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;  21 1039-1042
  Google Scholar
• 12 Harting van I, Sellner J, Meyding-Lamade U. et al . Bildgebung, Diagnosekriterien und Differenzialdiagnose der Multiplen Sklerose.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2003;  175 613-622
  Google Scholar
• 13 Reichenbach J R, Haacke E M. High-resolution BOLD venographic imaging: a window into brain function.  NMR Biomed. 2001;  14 453-467
  Google Scholar
• 14 Bo L, Geurts J J, Mork S J. et al . Grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis.  Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2006;  183 48-50
  Google Scholar
• 15 Kidd D, Barkhof F, McConnell R. et al . Cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis.  Brain. 1999;  122 17-26
  Google Scholar
• 16 Bozzali M, Cercignani M, Sormani M P. et al . Quantification of brain gray matter damage in different MS phenotypes by use of diffusion tensor MR imaging.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;  23 985-988
  Google Scholar
• 17 Geurts J J, Pouwels P J, Uitdehaag B M. et al . Intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis: improved detection with 3D double inversion-recovery MR imaging.  Radiology. 2005;  236 254-260
  Google Scholar
• 18 Bagnato F, Butman J A, Gupta S. et al . In vivo detection of cortical plaques by MR imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;  27 2161-2167
  Google Scholar
• 19 Bo L, Geurts J J, Valk van der P. et al . Lack of correlation between cortical demyelination and white matter pathologic changes in multiple sclerosis.  Arch Neurol. 2007;  64 76-80
  Google Scholar
• 20 Barkhof F, Walderveen van M. Characterization of tissue damage in multiple sclerosis by nuclear magnetic resonance.  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1999;  354 1675-1686
  Google Scholar
• 21 Grossman R I, Gonzalez-Scarano F, Atlas S W. et al . Multiple sclerosis: gadolinium enhancement in MR imaging.  Radiology. 1986;  161 721-725
  Google Scholar
• 22 Maravilla K R. Enhancing our understanding of multiple sclerosis: tracking contrast-enhancing plaques with MR imaging.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;  22 601-603
  Google Scholar
• 23 Nesbit G M, Forbes G S, Scheithauer B W. et al . Multiple sclerosis: histopathologic and MR and/or CT correlation in 37 cases at biopsy and three cases at autopsy.  Radiology. 1991;  180 467-474
  Google Scholar
• 24 He J, Grossman R I, Ge Y. et al . Enhancing patterns in multiple sclerosis: evolution and persistence.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;  22 664-669
  Google Scholar
• 25 Rovira A, Alonso J, Cucurella G. et al . Evolution of multiple sclerosis lesions on serial contrast-enhanced T 1-weighted and magnetization-transfer MR images.  Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;  20 1939-1945
  Google Scholar
• 26 Bagnato F, Jeffries N, Richert N D. et al . Evolution of T 1 black holes in patients with multiple sclerosis imaged monthly for 4 years.  Brain. 2003;  126 1782-1789
  Google Scholar
• 27 Masdeu J C, Quinto C, Olivera C. et al . Open-ring imaging sign: highly specific for atypical brain demyelination.  Neurology. 2000;  54 1427-1433
  Google Scholar
• 28 Gasperini C, Paolillo A, Rovaris M. et al . A comparison of the sensitivity of MRI after double- and triple-dose Gd-DTPA for detecting enhancing lesions in multiple sclerosis.  Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;  18 761-763
  Google Scholar
• 29 Silver N C, Good C D, Sormani M P. et al . A modified protocol to improve the detection of enhancing brain and spinal cord lesions in multiple sclerosis.  J Neurol. 2001;  248 215-224
  Google Scholar
• 30 Simon J H, Li D, Traboulsee A. et al . Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;  27 455-461
  Google Scholar
• 31 Kuhlmann T, Lingfeld G, Bitsch A. et al . Acute axonal damage in multiple sclerosis is most extensive in early disease stages and decreases over time.  Brain. 2002;  125 2202-2212
  Google Scholar
• 32 Charil A, Filippi M. Inflammatory demyelination and neurodegeneration in early multiple sclerosis.  J Neurol Sci. 2007;  259 7-15
  Google Scholar
• 33 Walderveen M A, Truyen van L, Oosten B W. et al . Development of hypointense lesions on T 1-weighted spin-echo magnetic resonance images in multiple sclerosis: relation to inflammatory activity.  Arch Neurol. 1999;  56 345-351
  Google Scholar
• 34 Hahnel van S, Jost G, Knauth M. et al . Aktuelle Anwendungen und mögliche zukünftige Applikationen der Magnetisierungstransfer-Technik in der Neuroradiologie.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2004;  176 175-182
  Google Scholar
• 35 Bot J C, Barkhof F, Polman C H. et al . Spinal cord abnormalities in recently diagnosed MS patients: added value of spinal MRI examination.  Neurology. 2004;  62 226-233
  Google Scholar
• 36 Hacklander T, Wegner H, Haensch C A. Die DEVIC-Krankheit: Eine seltene Differenzialdiagnose der Enzephalomyelitis disseminata.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2005;  177 1027-1029
  Google Scholar
• 37 Bot J C, Blezer E L, Kamphorst W. et al . The spinal cord in multiple sclerosis: relationship of high-spatial-resolution quantitative MR imaging findings to histopathologic results.  Radiology. 2004;  233 531-540
  Google Scholar
• 38 Bieniek M, Altmann D R, Davies G R. et al . Cord atrophy separates early primary progressive and relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;  77 1036-1039
  Google Scholar
• 39 Rashid W, Davies G R, Chard D T. et al . Upper cervical cord area in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: cross-sectional study of factors influencing cord size.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;  23 473-476
  Google Scholar
• 40 Polman C H, Reingold S C, Edan G. et al . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the „McDonald Criteria”.  Ann Neurol. 2005;  58 840-846
  Google Scholar
• 41 Dalton C M, Brex P A, Jenkins R. et al . Progressive ventricular enlargement in patients with clinically isolated syndromes is associated with the early development of multiple sclerosis.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;  73 141-147
  Google Scholar
• 42 Kappos L, Freedman M S, Polman C H. et al . Effect of early versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment on disability after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 3-year follow-up analysis of the BENEFIT study.  Lancet. 2007;  370 389-397
  Google Scholar
• 43 Swanton J K, Fernando K, Dalton C M. et al . Modification of MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis in patients with clinically isolated syndromes.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;  77 830-833
  Google Scholar
• 44 Charil A, Yousry T A, Rovaris M. et al . MRI and the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: expanding the concept of „no better explanation”.  Lancet Neurol. 2006;  5 841-852
  Google Scholar
• 45 Wattjes M P, Lutterbey G G, Harzheim M. et al . Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: an intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T.  Eur Radiol. 2006;  16 2067-2073
  Google Scholar
• 46 Wattjes M P, Harzheim M, Kuhl C K. et al . Does high-field MR imaging have an influence on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes according to current diagnostic mr imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis?.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;  27 1794-1798
  Google Scholar
• 47 Rossi C BA, Lindig T M, Martirosian P. et al . Diffusion Tensor Imaging of the Spinal Cord at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2007;  179 219-224
  Google Scholar
• 48 Trebst C, Wiendl H, Stangel M. Concepts of lesion development in multiple sclerosis. Current approaches and clinical-therapeutic implications.  Nervenarzt. 2006;  77 158, 60-62, 64
  Google Scholar
• 49 Nessler S, Boretius S, Stadelmann C. et al . Early MRI changes in a mouse model of multiple sclerosis are predictive of severe inflammatory tissue damage.  Brain. 2007;  130 2186-2198
  Google Scholar
• 50 Miller D H. Biomarkers and surrogate outcomes in neurodegenerative disease: lessons from multiple sclerosis.  NeuroRx. 2004;  1 284-294
  Google Scholar
• 51 Jasperse B, Minneboo A, Groot de V. et al . Determinants of cerebral atrophy rate at the time of diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.  Arch Neurol. 2007;  64 190-194
  Google Scholar
• 52 Fox N C, Jenkins R, Leary S M. et al . Progressive cerebral atrophy in MS: a serial study using registered, volumetric MRI.  Neurology. 2000;  54 807-812
  Google Scholar
• 53 Gluer C C, Barkmann R, Hahn H K. et al . Parametrische biomedizinische Bildgebung - was macht die Qualität quantitativer radiologischer Verfahren aus?.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2006;  178 1187-1201
  Google Scholar

Brigitte Holst

Klinik und Poliklinik für Neuroradiologische Diagnostik und Intervention, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg Eppendorf

Martinistraße 52

20246 Hamburg

Phone: + 49/40/4 28 03 27 46

Fax: + 49/40/4 28 03 46 40

Email: b.holst@uke.uni-hamburg.de