DailyDoctor Archive Specialties Get app
Back to the 2 September 2026 edition

Research · 05 of 06

Slowly expanding lesions are present in most MS patients and are mostly not paramagnetic rim lesions

Slowly expanding lesions account for about 14% of T2 lesions and are present in 78% of MS patients, but overlap with paramagnetic rim lesions in only 11% of cases — the two markers are not measuring the same thing.

A meta-analysis of 20 studies and 4,786 patients with multiple sclerosis estimated how common slowly expanding lesions are, and how far they overlap with paramagnetic rim lesions. Both are markers of chronic active inflammation, but they are identified differently — slowly expanding lesions by concentric growth on serial conventional MRI, paramagnetic rim lesions by a rim on susceptibility-sensitive sequences.

Slowly expanding lesions accounted for 14% of all T2 lesions, and 78% of patients had at least one. Mean per-patient volume was 1.42 mL against 10.6 mL of total T2 lesion. Only 11% of slowly expanding lesions overlapped with paramagnetic rim lesions.

That last number is the useful one. The two markers are routinely discussed as though they identify the same biology; on these data they largely do not. The proportion of lesions that were slowly expanding was similar in relapsing-remitting and progressive disease at around 15%, though more progressive patients had at least one. Heterogeneity was high across every analysis with no source identified, so treat the point estimates as approximate.

  • 78% of patients had at least one slowly expanding lesion — this is not a rare finding
  • Only 11% overlap with paramagnetic rim lesions; they are not interchangeable markers
  • Requires serial MRI with consistent technique, which limits routine applicability
  • Similar lesion proportions in relapsing and progressive disease
  • High unexplained heterogeneity; the intervals are wide for a reason

The statistics, in plain English

The intervals here are wide — 10 to 21% for the lesion proportion, 6 to 20% for the overlap — because between-study heterogeneity was high and no source for it was found. When that happens the pooled estimate is best read as a rough central value rather than a precise one, and differences of a few percentage points between subgroups should not be interpreted.

Read the rest in the app

You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.

QR code to install Daily Doctor
Get Daily Doctor — free

Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.

strokeheadachedementiams

Tomorrow morning, before your first patient

One edition a day for neurology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.

Get the app — free
Daily Doctor All 27 specialties, every morning. Free.
Get the app