Guidelines for MRI monitoring of the treatment of multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the US Multiple Sclerosis Society's task force

Routine MR Imaging Protocol and Standardization in Central Nervous System Demyelinating Diseases

Standardized MR imaging protocols are important for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and the appropriate use of MR imaging in routine clinical practice. Advances in using MR imaging to establish an earlier diagnosis of MS, safety concerns regarding intravenous gadolinium-based contrast agents, and the value of spinal cord MR imaging for diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring purposes suggest a changing role of MR imaging for the management and care of MS patients. The MR imaging protocol emphasizes 3 dimensional acquisitions for optimal comparison over time.

The role of MRI as a surrogate outcome measure in multiple sclerosis

The need for more specific and more sensitive outcome measures for use in testing new therapies in multiple sclerosis (MS) is generally accepted. This need has been accentuated by the realization that the ability to conduct large placebo-controlled trials will be limited in the future. From the first use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study MS, the ability of this imaging technique to identify areas of the central nervous system damage by the disease process in MS has been impressive. Thus, the possibility that MRI could serve as a surrogate outcome measure in clinical trials in MS has been attractive. The use of MRI as a surrogate outcome measure has been examined by an international group of investigators with expertise in clinical aspects of MS, the use of MRI in MS, and in experimental therapeutics. The group agreed that MRI does not represent a validated surrogate in any clinical form of MS. It was also agreed, however, that MRI does provide a reflection of the underlying pathology in the disease, but no single MRI measurement in isolation was seen as sufficient to monitor disease. The use for multiple imaging techniques, especially new, emerging techniques that may better reflect the underlying pathology, was seen as particularly important in monitoring studies of patients with either secondary or primary progressive MS. The choice of MRI techniques used to monitor new therapies needs to be consistent with the proposed mechanisms of the new therapy and phase of the disease. It was also noted, however, that additional validation is required for nonconventional imaging techniques. Finally, the participants noted that clinical trials using MRI as a primary outcome measure may fail to fully identify the effects of the therapy on clinical measures and that the risk and cost-benefit ratio of the treatment might be unresolved. Thus, before MRI is used as a primary outcome measure, new approaches to trial design must be given careful consideration. Multiple Sclerosis (2002)8, 40-51

MRI utility in the detection of disease activity in clinically stable patients with multiple sclerosis: a retrospective analysis of a community based cohort

BACKGROUND

Since the application of MRI scanning to the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis, it has been recognized that only a small fraction of lesions seen on MRI scans produce recognizable symptoms or neurological findings. Because new lesions may occur without clinical detection, the recommendation has been made that MRI scanning be performed on a routine scheduled basis, usually yearly, even in patients who are clinically stable.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review study was conducted on MS patients who had MRI scans of the central nervous system between 2009 and 2012 at Providence Multiple Sclerosis Center. Inclusion criteria were patients with relapsing MS who had been treated with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate for 6 months or longer. Information on type, indication, and result of MRI and whether a change in disease modifying therapy occurred as a result of the scan was collected.

RESULTS

Of the 436 clinically stable patients who had routine MRI, 16.7 % of subjects had scans revealing new, enlarged or active lesions, yet in only 4.4 % patients was there a change in therapy based upon MRI results. Subjects who had MRI changes were found to be younger (50.15 vs 53.43, p = 0.02) but there was no significant difference in other demographic or clinical characteristics when compared with the subjects who did not have MRI changes. Thirty-six percent of patients with MRI changes did not change DMT due to patient request.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides data on the likelihood of detecting MRI-documented disease activity, in patients demonstrating longer term sustained clinical stability while receiving DMTs. These results may materially assist in the decision whether or not to perform yearly MRI scanning of such patients. The potential clinical impact of the results of routine MRI scanning must be weighed against the consideration of considerable expense of frequent MRI scanning, and the yet unknown adverse impact of retained gadolinium in patients repeatedly receiving this contrast agent. The long-term clinical impact of not changing DMTs in patients in whom MRI changes were observed will be addressed in future studies of this cohort.

Regression to the mean and predictors of MRI disease activity in RRMS placebo cohorts--is there a place for baseline-to-treatment studies in MS?

BACKGROUND

Gadolinium-enhancing (GD+) lesions and T2 lesions are MRI outcomes for phase-2 treatment trials in relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS). Little is known about predictors of lesion development and regression-to-the-mean, which is an important aspect in early baseline-to-treatment trials.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify regression-to-the-mean and identify predictors of MRI lesion development in placebo cohorts.

METHODS

21 Phase-2 and Phase-3 trials were identified by a systematic literature research. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate development of T2 and GD+ after 6 months (phase-2) or 2 years (phase-3). Predictors of lesion development were evaluated with mixed-effect meta-regression.

RESULTS

The mean number of GD+-lesions per scan was similar after 6 months (1.19, 95%CI: 0.87-1.51) and 2 years (1.19, 95%CI: 1.00-1.39). 39% of the patients were without new T2-lesion after 6 month and 19% after 2 years (95%CI: 12-25%). Mean number of baseline GD+-lesions was the best predictor for new lesions after 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Baseline GD-enhancing lesions predict evolution of Gd- and T2 lesions after 6 months and might be used to control for regression to the mean effects. Overall, proof-of-concept studies with a baseline to treatment design have to face a regression to 1.2 GD+lesions per scan within 6 months.

Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Well as Clinical Disease Activity in the Clinical Classification of Multiple Sclerosis and Assessment of Its Course: A Report from an International CMSC Consensus Conference, March 5-7, 2010

It has recently been suggested that the Lublin-Reingold clinical classification of multiple sclerosis (MS) be modified to include the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An international consensus conference sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) was held from March 5 to 7, 2010, to review the available evidence on the need for such modification of the Lublin-Reingold criteria and whether the addition of MRI or other biomarkers might lead to a better understanding of MS pathophysiology and disease course over time. The conference participants concluded that evidence of new MRI gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1-weighted lesions and unequivocally new or enlarging T2-weighted lesions (subclinical activity, subclinical relapses) should be added to the clinical classification of MS in distinguishing relapsing inflammatory from progressive forms of the disease. The consensus was that these changes to the classification system would provide more rigorous definitions and categorization of MS course, leading to better insights as to the evolution and treatment of MS.

Seeing is believing: in vivo evolution of multiple sclerosis pathology with magnetic resonance

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is considered a prototypical inflammatory autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that affects both myelin and axon. One of the most challenging aspects of MS is understanding the nature and mechanism of tissue injury because inflammation, demyelination, axonal degeneration, microvascular injury, and atrophy are all identified in histopathologic studies. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging provides an in vivo examination of the brain that directly defines the extent of the pathology. In recent years, extensive MR studies have had a major impact on MS not only in making an early diagnosis but also in understanding of the disease. By exploiting the natural history and histopathologic correlation, conventional and various novel quantitative MR techniques have demonstrated the ability to image underlying pathological processes in MS. This review examines the role of different MR techniques in going beyond anatomical imaging and produces a more comprehensive overview of the pathophysiological changes which occur and evolve in MS.

The role of MRI as a surrogate outcome measure in multiple sclerosis

The need for more specific and more sensitive outcome measures for use in testing new therapies in multiple sderosis (MS) is generally accepted. This need has been accentuated by the realization that the ability to conduct large placebo-controlled trials will be limited in the future. From the first use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study MS, the ability of this imaging technique to identify areas of the central nervous system damage by the disease process in MS has been impressive. Thus, the possibility that MRI could serve as a surrogate outcome measure in clinical trials in MS has been attractive. The use of MRI as a surrogate outcome measure has been examined by an international group of investigators with expertise in clinical aspects of MS, the use of MRI in MS, and in experimental therapeutics. The group agreed that MRI does not represent a validated surrogate in any clinical form of MS. It was also agreed, however, that MRI does provide a reflection of the underlying pathology in the disease, but no single MRI measurement in isolation was seen as sufficient to monitor disease. The use for multiple imaging techniques, especially new, emerging techniques that may better reflect the underlying pathology, was seen as particularly important in monitoring studies of patients with either secondary or primary progressive MS. The choice of MRI techniques used to monitor new therapies needs to be consistent with the proposed mechanisms of the new therapy and phase of the disease. It was also noted, however, that additional validation is required for nonconventional imaging techniques. Finally, the participants noted that clinical trials using MRI as a primary outcome measure may fail to fully identify the effects of the therapy on dinical measures and that the risk and cost-benefit ratio of the treatment might be unresolved. Thus, before MRI is used as a primary outcome measure, new approaches to trial design must be given careful consideration.