Evolution of tumefactive lesions in multiple sclerosis: a 12-year study with serial imaging in a single patient

Clinical and radiological characteristics and outcomes of patients with recurrent or relapsing tumefactive demyelination

BACKGROUND

Relapsing or recurrent tumefactive demyelination is rare and has not been studied beyond individual case reports.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the clinical course, neuroimaging, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), treatment and outcomes of patients with recurrent tumefactive demyelinating lesions (TDLs).

METHODS

We used PubMed to identify reports of recurrent TDLs and included the details of an additional, unpublished patient.

RESULTS

We identified 18 cases (11F, 7 M). The median age at onset of the index TDL was 37 years (range 12-72) and most were solitary lesions 72 % (13/18). CSF-restricted oligoclonal bands (OCBs) were detected in 25 % (4/16). Only one of those tested (n = 13) was positive for AQP4-IgG. A moderate-to-marked treatment response (high dose corticosteroid with or without additional plasmapheresis, IVIg or disease modifying therapies) was evident in 89 % of treated patients. Median EDSS at the median follow-up of 36 months (range 6-144) was 2 (range 1-10). Most remained ambulatory (EDSS < 4 in 13/18), but 1 patient died.

CONCLUSION

The median age of patients with relapsing TDLs is similar to that of typical MS, but differences include a lower female:male sex ratio, larger lesions, and a comparative lack of CSF-restricted OCBs. Outcomes vary among this group of patients ranging from minimal disability through to death.

Long-term clinical, MRI, and cognitive follow-up in a large cohort of pathologically confirmed, predominantly tumefactive multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Limited studies have described long-term outcomes in pathology confirmed multiple sclerosis (MS).

OBJECTIVES

To describe long-term clinical-radiographic-cognitive outcomes in a prospectively followed cohort of patients with pathologically confirmed CNS demyelinating disease, consistent with MS.

METHODS

Subjects underwent clinical assessment, standardized 3T-MRI brain, and cognitive battery.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were included. Biopsied lesion size was ⩾ 2 cm in 62/75. At follow-up, median duration since biopsy was 11 years. Median EDSS was 3 and lesion burden was large (median 10 cm³). At follow-up, 57/75 met MS criteria, 17/75 had clinically isolated syndrome, and 1 radiographic changes only. Disability scores were comparable to a prevalence cohort in Olmsted County (p < 0.001, n = 218). Cognitive outcomes below age-normed standards included psychomotor, attention, working memory, and executive function domains. Total lesion volume and index lesion-related severity correlated with EDSS and cognitive performance. Volumetric cortical/subcortical GM correlated less than lesion metrics to cognitive outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite early aggressive course in pathologically confirmed MS, its long-term course was comparable to typical MS in our study. Cognitive impairment in this group seemed to correlate strongest to index lesion severity and total lesion volume. It remains to be established how the aggressive nature of the lesion, biopsy, and treatment affect clinical/cognitive outcomes.

Neuro-oncology dilemma: Tumour or tumefactive demyelinating lesion

Tumefactive demyelinating lesions (TDLs) are not an uncommon manifestation of demyelinating disease but can pose diagnostic challenges in patients without a pre-existing diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) as well as in known MS patients. Brain tumours can also arise in MS patients and can be seen in chronic MS patients as co-morbidities. Delayed diagnosis or unnecessary intervention or treatment will affect the ultimate prognosis of these patients. In this article, we will review some typical cases illustrating the dilemma and review the information that helps to differentiate the two conditions. The intention is not to present an extensive differential diagnosis of both entities, but to examine some typical examples when the decision arises to decide between the two. We take a somewhat different approach, by presenting the cases in "real time", allowing the readers to consider in their own minds which diagnosis they favour, discussing in detail some of the pertinent literature, then revealing later the actual diagnosis. We would urge readers to consider re-visiting their first thoughts about each case after reading the discussion, before reading the follow-up of each case. The overall objective is to highlight the real possibility of being forced to decide between these two entities in clinical practise, present a reasonable approach to help differentiate them and especially to focus on the possibility of TDLs in order to avoid unnecessary biopsy.