There are no specific, evidence-based recommendations for the management of individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome. Imaging and blood biomarkers may have prognostic utility.
Objective:
To determine whether plasma neurofilament light protein (NfL) or glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels in people with radiologically isolated syndrome correlate with imaging measures that have been shown to be associated with negative clinical outcomes in people with multiple sclerosis.
Methods:
Cross-sectional analysis of people with radiologically isolated syndrome. Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and cervical spinal cord, and plasma was collected. Plasma NfL and GFAP levels were measured with a single-molecule array, and correlations with MRI measures were assessed, including the number of: T1-black holes, white-matter lesions demonstrating the central vein sign, paramagnetic rim lesions, cervical spinal cord lesions and infratentorial lesions.
Results:
Plasma GFAP levels, but not NfL levels, showed correlations with the number of T1-black holes, white matter lesions demonstrating the central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesions (all p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
We found correlations between plasma GFAP levels and imaging measures associated with poor clinical outcomes and chronic inflammation in individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome. Plasma GFAP may have prognostic utility in clinical trials and clinical practice.
OkudaDTMowryEMBeheshtianA, et al. Incidental MRI anomalies suggestive of multiple sclerosis: The radiologically isolated syndrome. Neurology2008; 72(9): 800–805.
2.
LebrunCBensaCDebouverieM, et al. Association between clinical conversion to multiple sclerosis in radiologically isolated syndrome and magnetic resonance imaging, cerebrospinal fluid, and visual evoked potential: Follow-up of 70 patients. Arch Neurol2009; 66(7): 841–846.
3.
Lebrun-FrenayCKantarciOSivaA, et al. Radiologically isolated syndrome: 10-year risk estimate of a clinical event. Ann Neurol2020; 88(2): 407–417.
4.
OkudaDTSivaAKantarciO, et al. Radiologically isolated syndrome: 5-year risk for an initial clinical event. PLoS ONE2014; 9(3): e90509.
5.
Lebrun-FrénayCRollotFMondotL, et al. Risk factors and time to clinical symptoms of multiple sclerosis among patients with radiologically isolated syndrome. JAMA Netw Open2021; 4(10): e2128271.
6.
TremlettHMarrieRA. The multiple sclerosis prodrome: Emerging evidence, challenges, and opportunities. Mult Scler J2020; 27(1): 6–12.
7.
AmatoMPDe StefanoNIngleseM, et al. Secondary prevention in radiologically isolated syndromes and prodromal stages of multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol2022; 13: 787160.
8.
OkudaDTKantarciOLebrun-FrénayC, et al. Dimethyl fumarate delays multiple sclerosis in radiologically isolated syndrome. Ann Neurol2023; 93(3): 604–614.
9.
Lebrun-FrénayCSivaASormaniMP, et al. Teriflunomide and time to clinical multiple sclerosis in patients with radiologically isolated syndrome. JAMA Neurol2023; 80(10): 1080–1088.
10.
KantarciOHLebrunCSivaA, et al. Primary progressive multiple sclerosis evolving from radiologically isolated syndrome. Ann Neurol2016; 79(2): 288–294.
11.
SuthiphosuwanSSatiPGuenetteM, et al. The central vein sign in radiologically isolated syndrome. Am J Neuroradiol2019; 40(5): 776–783.
12.
SuthiphosuwanSSatiPAbsintaM, et al. Paramagnetic rim sign in radiologically isolated syndrome. JAMA Neurol2020; 77(5): 653.
13.
AbsintaMSatiPSchindlerM, et al. Persistent 7-Tesla phase rim predicts poor outcome in new multiple sclerosis patient lesions. J Clin Invest2016; 126(7): 2597–2609.
14.
SatiPOhJConstableRT, et al. The central vein sign and its clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: A consensus statement from the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative. Nat Rev Neurol2016; 12(12): 714–722.
15.
MeierSWillemseEAJSchaedelinS, et al. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein compared with neurofilament light chain as biomarker for multiple sclerosis disease progression. Mult Scler J2022; 28(3_suppl.): 3–129.
16.
AbdelhakAHussAKassubekJ, et al. Serum GFAP as a biomarker for disease severity in multiple sclerosis. Sci Rep2018; 8(1): 14798.
17.
KuhleJKropshoferHHaeringDA, et al. Blood neurofilament light chain as a biomarker of MS disease activity and treatment response. Neurology2019; 92(10): e1007–e1015.
18.
AyrignacXBarsELDuflosC, et al. Serum GFAP in multiple sclerosis: Correlation with disease type and MRI markers of disease severity. Sci Rep2020; 10(1): 10923.
19.
BittnerSSteffenFUphausT, et al. Clinical implications of serum neurofilament in newly diagnosed MS patients: A longitudinal multicentre cohort study. EBioMedicine2020; 56: 102807.
20.
PauwelsAVan SchependomJDevolderL, et al. Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light chain in relation to disability worsening in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2022; 28(11): 1685–1696.
21.
ManouchehriniaAStridhPKhademiM, et al. Plasma neurofilament light levels are associated with the risk of disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology2020; 94(23): e2457–e2467.
22.
BjornevikKMungerKLCorteseM, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain levels in patients with presymptomatic multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol2020; 77(1): 58–64.
23.
MeierSWillemseEAJSchaedelinS, et al. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein compared with neurofilament light chain as a biomarker for disease progression in multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol2023; 80(3): 287–297.
24.
QiuXLeeSJacksonJ, et al. Equivalence of serum and plasma neurofilament light chain levels using highly sensitive automated immunoassay. Alzheimer’s Dement2020; 16(S4): e045278.
25.
HuebschmannNALuotoTMKarrJE, et al. Comparing glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in serum and plasma following mild traumatic brain injury in older adults. Front Neurol2020; 11: 1054.
26.
RivalMThouvenotEDu Trieu de TerdonckL, et al. Neurofilament light chain levels are predictive of clinical conversion in radiologically isolated syndrome. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm2023; 10(1): e200044.
27.
BarroCHealyBCLiuY, et al. Serum GFAP and NfL levels differentiate subsequent progression and disease activity in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis. Neurology Neuroimmunol Neuroinflammation2022; 10(1): e200052.
28.
BrückWBitschAKolendaH, et al. Inflammatory central nervous system demyelination: Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging findings with lesion pathology. Ann Neurol1997; 42(5): 783–793.
29.
ThalerCFaizyTSedlacikJ, et al. T1-thresholds in black holes increase clinical-radiological correlation in multiple sclerosis patients. PLoS ONE2015; 10(12): e0144693.
30.
ThalerCFaizyTDSedlacikJ, et al. T1 recovery is predominantly found in black holes and is associated with clinical improvement in patients with multiple sclerosis. Am J Neuroradiol2017; 38(2): 264–269.
31.
LiNWangWTSatiP, et al. Quantitative assessment of susceptibility-weighted imaging processing methods. J Magn Reson Imaging2014; 40(6): 1463–1473.
32.
AbsintaMSatiPMasuzzoF, et al. Association of chronic active multiple sclerosis lesions with disability in vivo. JAMA Neurol2019; 76(12): 1474–1483.
33.
MitjanaRTintoréMRoccaMA, et al. Diagnostic value of brain chronic black holes on T1-weighted MR images in clinically isolated syndromes. Mult Scler2014; 20(11): 1471–1477.
34.
TruyenLvan WaesbergheJHvan WalderveenMA, et al. Accumulation of hypointense lesions ( ‘black holes’) on T1 spin-echo MRI correlates with disease progression in multiple sclerosis. Neurology1996; 47(6): 1469–1476.
35.
MinnebooABarkhofFPolmanCH, et al. Infratentorial lesions predict long-term disability in patients with initial findings suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol2004; 61(2): 217–221.
36.
BrownleeWJAltmannDRPradosF, et al. Early imaging predictors of long-term outcomes in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis. Brain2019; 142(8): 2276–2287.
37.
SombekkeMHWattjesMPBalkLJ, et al. Spinal cord lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome. Neurology2013; 80(1): 69–75.
38.
SechiEMessinaSKeeganBM, et al. Critical spinal cord lesions associate with secondary progressive motor impairment in long-standing MS: A population-based case-control study. Mult Scler J2020; 27(5): 667–673.
39.
LuchettiSFransenNLvan EdenCG, et al. Progressive multiple sclerosis patients show substantial lesion activity that correlates with clinical disease severity and sex: A retrospective autopsy cohort analysis. Acta Neuropathol2018; 135(4): 511–528.
40.
HemondCCHealyBCTauhidS, et al. MRI phenotypes in MS: Longitudinal changes and miRNA signatures. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm2019; 6(2): e530.
41.
AbsintaMMaricDGharagozlooM, et al. A lymphocyte–microglia–astrocyte axis in chronic active multiple sclerosis. Nature2021; 597(7878): 709–714.
42.
LiddelowSAGuttenplanKAClarkeLE, et al. Neurotoxic reactive astrocytes are induced by activated microglia. Nature2017; 541(7638): 481–487.
43.
HögelHRissanenEBarroC, et al. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein correlates with multiple sclerosis disease severity. Mult Scler J2018; 26(2): 210–219.
44.
Lebrun-FrénayCOkudaDTSivaA, et al. The radiologically isolated syndrome: Revised diagnostic criteria. Brain2023; 146(8): 3431–3443.
45.
StefanoNDStromilloMLRossiF, et al. Improving the characterization of radiologically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis. PLoS ONE2011; 6(4): e19452.
46.
KeaneCJohnsonPLeeJ, et al. Using myelin water imaging to investigate myelin damage and its association with clinical outcomes in radiologically isolated syndrome (S27.005). Neurology100(17suppl. 2): 2001, http://n.neurology.org/content/100/17_Supplement_2/2001.abstract
47.
AbsintaMDal-BiancoA. Slowly expanding lesions are a marker of progressive MS – Yes. Mult Scler2021; 27(11): 1679–1681.
48.
RivalMGaloppinMThouvenotE. Biological markers in early multiple sclerosis: The paved way for radiologically isolated syndrome. Front Immunol2022; 13: 866092.
