Does your MRI still show inflammation in remission?

Im not sure–but am curious to see if anybody knows. The only time I was given a mri was to rule out MS back when they were first trying to diagnose me, then again when they were checking my thymus gland.
At neither of these did they mention inflammation, I didnt even know a mri detected inflammation. Its a good ?—hopefully there will be info on it.

I went into remission almost 8 years ago, thanks to the cytoxan treatment. I haven’t had an MRI since 2002, but I would be willing to bet that I wouldn’t have any inflammation, as my CIDP or my condition has been the same since2004.

I was told “If you are in remission there will be no inflammation.”

Emily’s last MRI (done Nov 2006) showed inflammation on her spine from the lower lumber down. She has not had another one since then to compare.

I was told the inflammation is there because the inflammatory process is still ongoing. I would assume if each MRI shows a decrease in inflammation that it would mean the treatments are working.

I noticed you called me the other day. I will try to get back with you soon. I’m working 2 jobs now & life is pretty hectic these days.

Kelly

I’m curious. Are these MRIs with or without Gadolinium enhancement?

Perhaps it doesn’t matter. I found a few, small number of patient, studies that all seemed to have this sort of result in common:

“.[I]..In four patients with progressive illness or relapse, the enlarged segment showed gadolinium [COLOR=”Green”]enhancement that disappeared during remission induced by immune therapies. [/COLOR][COLOR=”Red”]The other four were in the steady phase and showed no gadolinium enhancement[/COLOR] of the enlarged nerves..[/I]..”

Hmm, seems to represent the best and worst of our conditions, including my own. Some will show no inflammation some will. Oh, darn. Where is something we can hang our hat on?

I never did display any spinal inflammation, enhanced or not.

In the studies I reviewed, some folks had no inflammation yet were, as above, “steady state” seeming to mean neither progressive nor relapse? I take steady state to mean on going, neither worse nor better.

In the end, I tend to agree with Emily’s_Mom.

Finding ‘stuff,’ even remotely pertaining to what I want, seems to be a matter of how I enter the search parameters. Sometimes shuffling, reversing or replacing terms is required

However, perhaps more importantly, is how I select which of the search results to review. Sometimes I will page on past 5, 6 or even 9 pages of returns before finding what I want.

For example the search terms “mri inflammation cidp” yield this, which while useful, is not what I want to find for your question.

[url]http://www.uptodate.com/contents/chronic-inflammatory-demyelinating-polyneuropathy-etiology-clinical-features-and-diagnosis[/url]

To find ‘studies’ I usually add the search term “NIH”. Thus my search criteria becomes “NIH mri inflammation cidp”

Yielding, for example:

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9109870[/url]

and, here is one, while perhaps not directly addressing your question does address pediatric cidp (and other conditions) at length. Page way way down.

“…[I]The diagnosis is supported by the presence of raised CSF protein without cells, [COLOR=”Green”]thickened and/or enhancing roots on MRI of the cervical or lumbar spine,[/COLOR] a positive response to immunomodulatory treatment [/I]…”

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923368/[/url]

changing the search results to “nih magnetic imaging cidp”

“…[I]In a consecutive series of 30 patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) minor clinical evidence of CNS involvement was found in five. Cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in 28 and revealed abnormalities consistent with demyelination in nine patients aged less than 50 years and abnormalities in five aged 50 years or over.[/I]…”

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1014259/[/url]

Therefore, for my purposes, finding a ‘study’ yields better results when using NIH and then looking, looking, and looking yet some more for what I want.

Happy Searching.

ah, ha, yes for the naysayers, they did say “…Minor clinical evidence in some patients of CNS involvement and Cranial abnormalities.” hmmmmmm, where’s that place I can hang my hat?