Abstract
Objective To determine whether MRI gadolinium enhancement patterns in myelopathies with longitudinally extensive T2 lesions can be reliably distinguished and assist in diagnosis.
Methods We retrospectively identified 74 Mayo Clinic patients (January 1, 1996–December 31, 2019) fulfilling the following criteria: (1) clinical myelopathy; (2) MRI spine available; (3) longitudinally extensive T2 hyperintensity (≥3 vertebral segments); and (4) characteristic gadolinium enhancement pattern associated with a specific myelopathy etiology. Thirty-nine cases with alternative myelopathy etiologies, without previously described enhancement patterns, were included as controls. Two independent readers, educated on enhancement patterns, reviewed T2-weighted and postgadolinium T1-weighted images and selected the diagnosis based on this knowledge. These were compared with the true diagnoses, and agreement was measured with Kappa coefficient.
Results Among all cases and controls (n = 113), there was excellent agreement for diagnosis using postgadolinium images (kappa, 0.76) but poor agreement with T2-weighted characteristics alone (kappa, 0.25). A correct diagnosis was more likely when assessing postgadolinium image characteristics than with T2-weighted images alone (rater 1: 100/113 [88%] vs 61/113 [54%] correct, p < 0.0001; rater 2: 95/113 [84%] vs 68/113 [60%] correct, p < 0.0001). Of the 74 with characteristic enhancement patterns, 55 (74%) were assigned an alternative incorrect or nonspecific diagnosis when originally evaluated in clinical practice, 12 (16%) received immunotherapy for noninflammatory myelopathies, and 2 (3%) underwent unnecessary spinal cord biopsy.
Conclusions Misdiagnosis of myelopathies is common. The gadolinium enhancement patterns characteristic of specific diagnoses can be identified with excellent agreement between raters educated on this topic. This study highlights the potential diagnostic utility of enhancement patterns in myelopathies with longitudinally extensive T2 lesions.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
- Received September 3, 2020.
- Accepted November 2, 2020.
- Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
