Prevalence of Slowly Expanding Lesions in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic active lesions (CALs) reflect chronic inflammation in multiple sclerosis (MS). Slowly expanding lesions (SELs) are CALs identified on conventional MRI by linear, concentric expansion over time, while paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs) are CALs characterized by a paramagnetic rim on susceptibility-sensitive MRI. However, the prevalence of SELs and their overlap with PRLs remain unclear. The aims of this study were to (1) estimate the proportion of SELs among all T2 lesions and the proportion of patients with at least 1 SEL and (2) assess the proportion of SELs overlapping with PRLs. METHODS: and robustness using sensitivity analyses. Univariable meta-regression explored heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42024603778. RESULTS: Of 5,980 records, 20 studies comprising 4,786 patients with MS were included (mean age: 43.6 ± 6.3 years; 63.7% female). Sample sizes varied by outcome. SELs accounted for 14% (95% CI 10-21) of all T2 lesions, and 78% (67-85) of patients had at least 1 SEL. After sensitivity analysis, per-patient mean volumes were 1.42 mL (0.79-2.06) for SELs and 10.6 mL (8.53-12.67) for total T2 lesions. In total, 11% (6-20) of SELs overlapped with PRLs. In subgroup analyses, proportions of SELs were similar in relapsing-remitting and progressive MS (15%), but the proportion of patients with at least 1 SEL was higher in progressive MS. Between-study heterogeneity was high across analyses with no significant sources identified. DISCUSSION: Although SELs represent a minority of T2 lesions, most patients have at least 1 SEL and a subset overlaps with PRLs, suggesting a partial correspondence between these 2 imaging markers of chronic inflammatory activity. Limitations include possible publication bias, high unexplained heterogeneity, differences in SEL identification methods, and differences in MRI time point number/timing.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.