Оценка клинической полезности TSPO-PET в MS и влияние методологической гетерогенности: систематический обзор и метаанализ.

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the CNS characterized by focal demyelinating inflammatory lesions. Historically, MS research and treatment has focused on adaptive immune mechanisms; however, growing evidence highlights a critical role for innate immunity in MS pathophysiology. 1-4 Activated microglia and macrophages are the predominant immune cells in acute and chronic MS lesions 5 and are closely associated with lesion formation and demyelination. 6 Notably, increased microglial and macrophage activation has been observed in normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) before lesion formation, as well as in ongoing compartmentalized inflammation manifesting as chronic active lesions, supporting their involvement in both early lesion development and ongoing disease progression. 7,8 Given the central role of myeloid cells in MS pathology, noninvasive imaging is needed to characterize their in vivo distribution and activity in and around lesions.

PET imaging targeting the 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO) is a widely used method to detect neuroinflammation in vivo, owing to its increased expression across neuroinflammatory diseases. 9 In the brain, TSPO signal predominantly reflects microglia/macrophages, although expression is also observed in activated astrocytes and endothelial cells. 10,11 Recent human brain tissue studies show that although TSPO expression does not necessarily increase per cell during neuroinflammation, overall TSPO expression closely reflects microglial/macrophage density. 10,12 Nutma et al. 12 found that over 95% of TSPO + cells in the NAWM, active lesions, and rims of chronic active lesions are microglia/macrophages. Notably, interpretation of TSPO-PET signal is complicated by the TSPO polymorphism (rs6971) that influences ligand binding affinity, resulting in low-affinity (LAB), mixed-affinity (MAB), and high-affinity binding (HAB) and contributing to interindividual variability in tracer signal, 13 which most strongly affects second-generation tracers, although it is not exclusive to them. 14,15 Nonetheless, the relative cellular enrichment and specificity of TSPO supports the use of TSPO-PET for detecting focal innate inflammatory activity in MS. Thus, TSPO-PET can complement conventional imaging, providing insights into MS pathogenesis, progression, and treatment response. 16,17

Although numerous clinical studies have employed TSPO-PET to investigate neuroinflammation in MS, results and approaches vary considerably. 16,17 This variability likely reflects methodological heterogeneity, including differences in radiotracer selection, quantification strategies, outcome metrics, TSPO genotype handling, and patient characteristics. To address these inconsistencies and quantify the strength of the existing evidence, a systematic review and meta-analysis of TSPO-PET studies in MS was conducted. Specifically, the analysis evaluated the ability of TSPO-PET to discriminate MS from healthy controls (HC), how methodological factors influence imaging outcomes, and the association of TSPO-PET with disease severity.

Methods

Study Design and PICO Definition

This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 18 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024510937). We evaluated whether TSPO-PET distinguishes people with MS (PwMS) from HC and differentiates MS subtypes, including relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and progressive MS (PMS, comprising primary progressive and secondary progressive MS) from each other and from HC. Patient-level associations between TSPO-PET signal and measures of disease severity and demographics were also examined.

Search Strategy

Keywords related to TSPO, TSPO-PET tracers, and MS were identified using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree databases. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase (eTable 1), covering studies published through September 10, 2025. Google scholar manual searches and reference screening identified preprint and nonindexed articles.

Literature Screening and Selection Criteria

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts against predefined criteria, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Eligible studies were human TSPO-PET studies in PwMS, excluding reviews, case reports, duplicate studies, conference abstracts, and studies lacking TSPO-PET outcomes. Studies without HC required patient-level TSPO-PET and disease severity outcomes for inclusion.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted study-level and patient-level data including patient characteristics, participant demographics, TSPO polymorphism status, and imaging variables. Imaging variables included tracer selection, acquisition timing, correction methods (e.g., partial volume correction [PVC] and plasma correction), analysis methods, PET quantification metric, and region of interest (ROI) definitions.

Extracted PET metrics included nondisplaceable binding potential (BP ND ), distribution volume ratio (DVR), standardized uptake value (SUV), standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), total volume of distribution (Vt), Vt divided by plasma free fraction (Vt/ƒp), and Glial activity load on PET Z score (GALPz). Data reported as uptake ratio and SUVR max were pooled with SUVR data for analyses. 19-21

PET analysis methods were classified as: reference tissue kinetic, using reference region data instead of arterial input (simplified reference tissue model [SRTM] and Logan reference tissue model [Logan-Ref]; static/semi-quantitative, based on static single frame measures (e.g., those generating SUV or SUVR) with any “reference” region used only for post hoc normalization; arterial-input compartmental models, using metabolite-corrected plasma input and no reference tissue (2-tissue compartment models [2TCM]); and arterial-input graphical/multilinear models, classified as linearized models (i.e., Logan plot and multilinear analysis 1 [MA1]).

Brain ROI data were collected and anatomically equivalent ROIs grouped together (eTable 2). ROIs reported fewer than 3 times were classified as “other” and excluded from ROI-based meta-regression and subgroup analyses. All perilesional area definitions (i.e., 3 mm, 22-24 3-6 mm, 25 6 mm, 26 and 2–6 mm lesion rims 27 ) were combined into a single “perilesional area” ROI. TSPO-PET signal in lesional, perilesional, and NAWM ROIs of PwMS was compared with WM signal in HC. Reference tissue application was characterized as model-embedded or ratio-based normalization for target ROIs. When arterial-input models reported ratios relative to another brain region, that region was classified as a normalization region rather than a kinetic reference tissue.

For group comparisons, sample size, mean TSPO-PET signal, and SD were extracted. Data were obtained from tables, text, supplementary materials, or digitally extracted from figures (using Plot Digitizer software). When only subgroup data were reported, pooled means and SDs were calculated. For longitudinal studies, only baseline data were included. When multiple radiotracers, analysis methods, quantification metrics, and/or ROIs were reported, each was recorded as a separate estimate.

Meta-Analyses

Analyses were performed in R (version 4.1.1) 28 using the metafor (version 4.4.0) 29 and clubSandwich packages. 30,31 Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated to compare TSPO-PET signal between PwMS and HC. Aggregation was used to generate forest plots for visualization purposes only, with averaged estimates from the same study populations were aggregated, and random-effects model (REM) using restricted maximum likelihood was fitted to obtain pooled SMDs with 95% confidence intervals.

Many studies contributed multiple estimates from the same study participants (e.g., from different ROIs and quantification/analysis methods) and were statistically dependent, violating the independence assumption of standard meta-analysis. To account for this, cluster-robust variance (CRV) estimation grouped estimates from the same participant sample into a single cluster and adjusted standard errors for within-cluster dependence. Overlapping cohorts were assigned to the same cluster (e.g., studies from Herranz et al. 32 and Barletta et al. 33 ), while studies with independent samples were treated as separate clusters.

To explore sources of heterogeneity, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed using CRV based on tracer, signal quantification metric, image analysis method, ROIs, reference tissue in algorithm, and reference tissue in ratio, with heterogeneity quantified using R 2 statistics. Heterogeneity was estimated using the restricted maximum-likelihood estimator, 29 Q test, 34 and I 2 statistic 35 for analyses with ≥3 estimates. Meta-analyses were repeated using a multivariate CRV-based model to account for all meta-regression variables. Publication bias was assessed by rank correlation tests of funnel plot asymmetry. 36

Subgroups with <3 independent estimates were excluded from formal meta-analysis and reported descriptively and heterogeneity statistics were calculated for subgroups with ≥3 estimates. Sensitivity analyses excluding small subgroups were performed to assess robustness.

Individual patient-level data were analyzed to evaluate associations between TSPO-PET signal and clinical disability measures (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS], Symbol digit modalities test Z score [SDMTz], and MS severity score [MSSS]), and demographic variables (disease duration, age, and sex). These represent meta-analyses of patient-level data clustered by study cohort rather than true patient-level mixed models. Linear regression 37 with bias-reduced CRV and Satterthwaite degrees-of-freedom correction based on number of clusters was applied in all cases, including sex, to account for the small number of contributing study cohorts. Effect sizes are reported as unstandardized regression coefficients (β) with 95% confidence intervals. Data with fewer than 3 contributing clusters are flagged as hypothesis generating, given the limited reliability of variance estimation in this setting. Sex was coded (female = 1, male = 0) with a positive β coefficient indicating higher signal in women. Sensitivity analyses restricted datasets to tracer and ROI categories with demonstrated group signal differences to minimize dilution of disease-related effects from heterogeneous ROI selection and variable tracer sensitivity.

Quality Assessment

Studies were evaluated using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool, 38 assessing bias and applicability across 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. The reference standard was any established MS diagnostic criteria (e.g., McDonald criteria 39 ) and the index test was TSPO-PET imaging. Signaling questions were rated as “yes” (low risk), “no” (high risk), or “unclear.” Applicability was evaluated for all domains except flow and timing. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for observational studies. 40 Two independent reviewers conducted the quality assessment, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

Standard Protocol Approvals, Registrations, and Patient Consents

Approval was not required for this work as all data were extracted from published articles.

Data Availability

Data available on request.

Results

Study Characteristics

The systematic search identified 1,874 articles. After removal of 677 duplicates, 1,197 articles underwent title and abstract screening, of which 852 were excluded. Full-text review was performed for 345 articles, resulting in 55 articles meeting initial inclusion. Six studies were excluded due to limited or nonstandard reporting (eTable 3). 41-46 Hence, 49 articles were included in the analyses 19-27,32,33,47-50 ,e1-34 ( Figure 1 ). Of these, data from 41 studies were included in the meta-analysis comparing TSPO-PET signal between PwMS and HC, 37 studies were included in MS subtype comparisons, and 25 studies were included in patient-level regression analyses. eTable 4 summarizes methodological characteristics in the included studies. Participant clinical and demographic characteristics are summarized in eTable 5.

Two pairs of studies reported overlapping populations. Barletta et al. 33 referenced population overlap with that of Herranz et al. 32 Therefore, data from both studies were retained and grouped for analyses involving different ROIs. Similarly, data from Mantovani et al. e15 and Pitombeira et al. e20 were clustered together because Mantovani et al. e15 described their study as a retrospective analysis of the cohort originally reported by Pitombeira et al. e20 However, when both studies used identical ROIs and methodologies, only data from Pitombeira et al. were included in the analyses owing to its larger sample size.

Study Level TSPO-PET Signal Comparisons

Across all included studies, a random-effects model with cluster-robust variance (CRV) estimation showed significantly higher TSPO-PET signal in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) compared with HC (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI 0.27–0.61, p < 0.001, cluster number (N) = 39, estimate N = 278), with substantial residual heterogeneity ( I 2 = 97.00%) ( Figure 2 ). This CRV-adjusted model, which accounts for multiple statistically dependent effect size estimates within individual studies, was used as the primary analysis. Given this high heterogeneity, meta-regression and subgroup analyses investigated methodological contributors, including radiotracer selection, PET quantification metric, image analysis approach, references tissue application, and ROIs reported ( Tables 1 and 2 ; eTables 6 and 7).

Radiotracer Selection

Meta-regression indicated that radiotracer selection accounted for 11.47% of between-study heterogeneity ( Table 1 ). However, substantial residual heterogeneity remained ( I 2 = 96.57%), suggesting that additional methodological and/or biological factors contribute to variability in TSPO-PET estimates. Several radiotracer categories were represented by fewer than 3 effect size estimates; these were retained in the meta-regression, but their individual contributions should be interpreted cautiously.

Significantly elevated TSPO-PET signals in PwMS were observed only in studies using [ 11 C]PK11195, [ 11 C]PBR28, and [ 18 F]DPA-714. Subgroup analyses corroborated these findings. However, [ 11 C]DPA-713 was not significant and was based on few estimates, while [ 18 F]FEDAA1106 and [ 11 C]ER176 had insufficient data for reliable meta-analysis ( Table 1 ).

Assessment of heterogeneity within tracer subgroups revealed significant heterogeneity for most tracers. Heterogeneity could not be reliably detected for [ 18 F]FEDAA1106 and [ 11 C]ER176 due to insufficient data, whereas [ 11 C]DPA-713 exhibited low and nonsignificant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 33.82%, p > 0.050) ( Table 1 ). These findings highlight substantial tracer-dependent variability in TSPO-PET signal estimation in MS and support consideration of radiotracer selection when interpreting between-study differences.

PET Quantification Metric

Meta-regression identified PET quantification metric as a significant contributor to heterogeneity, explaining 15.37% of variance, with substantial residual heterogeneity ( I 2 = 96.46%, Table 1 ). Significant differences between PwMS and HC were observed using DVR and BP ND. GALPz also showed apparent differences; however, with only 2 estimates from a single cluster, this finding could not be reliably assessed. Subgroup analyses yielded consistent results, although substantial residual heterogeneity persisted across most approaches.

To further evaluate the impact of quantification methodology under conditions of demonstratable tracer sensitivity, a secondary sensitivity analysis was performed including only tracers that exhibited significantly elevated TSPO-PET signal in PwMS relative to HC (i.e., [ 11 C]PK11195, [ 11 C]PBR28, and [ 18 F]DPA-714). In this restricted dataset, PET quantification metric accounted for 13.93% of the between-study variance ( R 2 = 13.93%), with substantial residual heterogeneity remaining ( I 2 = 96.86%, eTable 6). Significant group differences were observed not only using DVR and BP ND but also for SUVR. Restricting analyses to tracers with demonstrable TSPO-PET signal differences between PwMS and HC showed a marked reduction in heterogeneity for select quantification metrics. Residual heterogeneity was low for Vt ( R 2 = 98.88%, I 2 = 21.16%) and moderate for BP ND ( R 2 = 59.65%, I 2 = 63.25%). By contrast, DVR and SUVR estimates remained highly heterogeneous ( R 2 = 0.0%, I 2 = 98.30% and R 2 = 43.15%, I 2 = 93.98%, respectively).

Image Analysis Method

Meta-regression demonstrated that image analysis method accounted for only a small proportion of study heterogeneity ( R 2 = 1.59%) and exhibited high residual heterogeneity ( I 2 = 96.91%). Significant differences in TSPO-PET signal between PwMS and HC were observed using reference tissue-based kinetic models (i.e., SRTM & Logan reference), but not in static/semiquantitative methods and arterial-input compartmental, graphical, or multilinear models. Subgroup analyses mirrored these results, confirming that significant elevations in TSPO-PET signal were restricted to reference-tissue kinetic model methods ( Table 1 ).

When analyses were restricted to tracers with demonstrable TSPO-PET signal differences, meta-regression again attributed minimal heterogeneity to image analysis method ( R 2 = 3.65%, I 2 = 97.16%). In this tracer-restricted dataset, significant group differences remained for reference tissue-based kinetic models, with additional significance identified with static/semiquantitative approaches (SUV, SUVR), supported by both meta-regression and subgroup analyses (eTable 6).

Reference Tissue Selection

Although image analysis method explained only a small proportion of heterogeneity, reference tissue selection represents an important methodological consideration because it directly informs the calculation of DVR, BP ND , and SUVR quantification, metrics associated with between-study variability and group differentiation. Reference tissue effects were therefore examined separately according to whether the reference region was incorporated within quantitative models or applied post hoc as a ratio-based normalization.

Reference Tissue Within Quantitative Models

Meta-regression demonstrated that reference tissue selection within quantitative models accounted for approximately a quarter of heterogeneity ( R 2 = 25.73%, Table 1 ) in associated studies, with high residual heterogeneity remaining ( I 2 = 97.81%). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses of reference tissue selection within quantitative models revealed that supervised cluster analysis-derived reference regions (i.e., 4SCA and 10SCA) and the thalamus were associated with significant differentiation between PwMS and HC, with the caudate exhibiting a trend ( p = 0.075–0.082, Table 1 ). Notably, estimates were heavily weighted toward 4SCA, with few studies contributing data for alternative reference tissue approaches. Accordingly, findings regarding reference tissue effects beyond 4SCA should be interpreted cautiously.

Restricted tracer analyses demonstrated reduced variance ( R 2 = 16.98%) and showed that 4SCA, 10SCA, and the caudate were associated with significant differences between groups (eTable 6).

Reference Tissue for Ratio-Based Normalization

For post hoc ratio-based approaches, reference tissue selection accounted for nearly a third of heterogeneity ( R 2 = 32.95%, Table 1 ) in meta-regression analyses, with high residual heterogeneity persisting ( I 2 = 90.32%). The use of NAWM-derived clusters, and 4SCA was associated with significant differences in TSPO-PET signal between HC and PwMS. Subgroup analyses corroborated findings for NAWM-derived clusters and 4SCA, with the addition of whole brain.

Tracer-restricted meta-regression somewhat reduced the attributed variance ( R 2 = 24.32%) and retained NAWM-derived clusters and 4SCA as reference tissues associated with significant group differences. However, subgroup analyses differed slightly with the addition of cortical gray matter (GM) significance (eTable 6). Consistent with the algorithm-based analyses, GM and cerebellum crus regions demonstrated low estimates (n = 1) and should be interpreted descriptively only.

ROIs

To evaluate regional TSPO-PET signal differences between HC and PwMS, meta-regression by ROI was performed ( Table 2 ). ROI-based meta-regression accounted for 19.71% of heterogeneity, with substantial residual heterogeneity remaining ( I 2 = 95.84%). Meta-regression demonstrated significantly higher TSPO-PET signal in PwMS compared with HC in the cortex, hippocampus, NAWM, perilesional area, putamen, thalamus, whole brain, WM, and T 2 -defined magnetic resonance imaging WM lesions. Subgroup analyses yielded results concordant with meta-regression findings and similarly demonstrated substantial residual heterogeneity across most ROIs. eFigure 1 illustrates regional TSPO-PET signal differences in brain, with SMDs calculated using aggregation REM. Analyses including restricted tracers showed somewhat similar results with the putamen and T 2 WM lesions showing trends but not reaching significance (eTable 7).

Multivariate Meta-Regression Accounting for Methodological Variables

Meta-analysis of TSPO-PET signal comparison between PwMS and healthy populations was repeated using a multivariate CRV model accounting for key methodological variable including tracer selection, PET quantification metric, image analysis method, reference tissue application, and ROI. In this multivariate model, TSPO-PET signal remained significantly higher in PwMS compared with HC (model intercept = 3.86, 95% CI 2.40–5.33, p < 0.001). Although these methodological variables contributed to 48.27% of variance, residual heterogeneity remained substantial ( I 2 = 93.24%).

TSPO-PET Across MS Subtypes

Pairwise CRV meta-analyses across 35 studies comparing PMS, RRMS, and HC demonstrated significantly elevated TSPO-PET signal in PMS relative to RRMS (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31–0.66, p = 0.0002, I 2 = 93.41%, cluster N: 24, estimate N: 127). Both RRMS and PMS exhibited significantly higher TSPO-PET signals compared with HC (RRMS: SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.06–0.47, p = 0.0161, I 2 = 94.58%, cluster N: 28, estimate N: 206, PMS: SMD = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.39–1.06, p = 0.0012, I 2 = 96.33, cluster N: 21, estimate N: 132). These results demonstrate a difference in TSPO-PET signal across phenotypes, with the greatest effect sizes observed in PMS ( Figure 3 ). However, heterogeneity remained high across all subtype comparisons.

Patient-Level Regressions: TSPO-PET and Clinical Measures

When all available data were pooled across all reported tracers and ROIs, no statistically significant associations were found between TSPO-PET signal and clinical or demographic variables. Analyses including restricted tracers and ROIs also did not show statistically significant associations (eTable 8).

Because pooling across numerous heterogeneous ROIs may obscure region-specific and disease-specific associations, additional ROI-stratified analyses were performed in regions implicated in MS pathology. Including all tracers, analyses showed significant but weak associations between DVR and EDSS in NAWM ( Table 3 ). However, the observed β coefficients were small, and several ROI-specific estimates were based on a limited cluster N. Similar results were seen when restricting tracers (eTable 9), with a significant association emerging between DVR and EDSS in NAWM. No data points were available to assess the association between DVR and MSSS in the perilesional area, and the estimates needed to evaluate the association between DVR and SDMT Z-score could not be extracted. Overall, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because the available data for several restricted and ROI-specific analyses were limited in size and completeness, which may have reduced the precision and robustness of the estimated associations.

Quality Assessment

Patient selection was rated as low risk of bias in all studies except one, which had unclear risk for both bias and applicability owing to the absence of selection criteria reporting e14 (eTable 10). Four studies (8.16%) included LAB participants with second-generation TSPO-PET tracers without stratification, 26 ,e2,e31,e33 and 1 included patients with clinically isolated syndrome 25 ; thus, these studies were rated as high risk in patient selection applicability. For the index test, 6 studies (12.24%) reported blinded analyses and were designated low risk, 32,48 ,e18,e24,e28,e31 whereas the remaining studies classified as unclear risk. Applicability bias for the index test was low across studies. For the reference standard, 34 studies (69.39%) reported MS diagnosis using established clinical criteria (low risk), while 15 studies (30.61%) did not specify diagnostic criteria (unclear risk). 21,26,32,49 ,e8-11,e13-14,e16,e21,e25,e30-31 All studies demonstrated low risk of bias for flow and timing.

Funnel plot rank correlation and Egger revealed no substantial asymmetry or publication bias in the overall analysis of MS vs HC or in MS subtype comparisons (eFigures 2 and 3). Certainty of evidence rating was initially low, owing to the observational study design and remained low after upgrading for the multivariate effect and downgrading for substantial remaining heterogeneity. No serious concerns were identified for risk of bias affecting outcome measurement or for indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias (eTable 11). Owing to low number of inputs, publication bias analyses and GRADE rating were not carried out for subgroups. Given the high residual heterogeneity, publication bias tests are limited and cannot exclude its presence. Similarly, GRADE certainty is also limited by the high residual heterogeneity.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that TSPO-PET signal is elevated in PwMS compared with HC, supporting its potential as an in vivo marker of innate inflammatory activity in MS. TSPO-PET also distinguished MS subtypes, with higher signal observed in PMS relative to RRMS, and both showing elevated signal compared with controls. These findings align with pathologic evidence of sustained innate immune activity in progressive disease and support the ability of TSPO-PET to detect biologically meaningful differences across disease states. e35

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies, much of which was attributable to methodological differences. Notably, R 2 values reported are exploratory and model dependent and do not fully attribute variance to biological vs methodological factors. Radiotracer selection accounted for 11.47% of heterogeneity, consistent with known differences in ligand signal-to-noise ratio and genotype sensitivities. 13,26 ,e36 Although the rs6971 polymorphism affects second-generation tracers, 20 studies used [ 11 C]PK11195, which is not genotype sensitive. Despite its lower signal-to-noise ratio and higher nonspecific binding, 26 ,e36 [ 11 C]PK11195 was associated with significantly elevated signal in PwMS. For second-generation tracers, incomplete reporting and stratification by binding class likely introduced additional variability across LAB, MABs, and HABs. Overall genotype effects could not be modeled as few studies reported and stratified data. In addition, tracer and/or tracer generation (first, second, and third) may also contribute to heterogeneity in our data. Therefore, tracer-restricted sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate how subsequent analytic choices (quantification metric, modeling approach, reference tissue strategy, and ROI definition) behave under demonstrated tracer sensitivity. However, it should be noted that restricted tracer analyses are not representative of the full TSPO-PET literature. They represent signal-enriched conditions and may amplify differences between PwMS and HC.

PET quantification metric also accounted for substantial variance (15.37%). BP ND and DVR showed significantly elevated signal in MS cohorts in the full dataset. Differences across metrics likely reflect varying sensitivity to modeling assumptions, plasma input requirements, and normalization strategies. SUVR reached significance only under tracer restriction. Under tracer-restricted conditions, heterogeneity decreased for selected approaches, with Vt and BP ND showing greater stability than DVR and SUVR, likely owing to variability introduced by reference region selection. By contrast, image analysis method accounted for only a small portion of heterogeneity before and after tracer restriction (1.59–3.65%). Significant group differences were seen with referenced-based methods and additionally with static quantification in restricted tracer analyses, including SUVR, suggesting that tracer selection and reference region may be important considerations.

Accordingly, reference tissue and normalization strategy contributed meaningfully to between-study variability. Both within model and ratio-based quantification were attributable to variance. SCA-derived regions are more consistently associated with group discrimination than several anatomically defined reference regions, although evidence for non–SCA-driven approaches was limited. ROI analyses demonstrated consistently higher TSPO-PET signal in MS compared with HC, including in NAWM, perilesional area, T 2 WM lesions, total WM, thalamus, putamen, cortex, and hippocampus. Elevated perilesional signals are consistent with prior pathologic and imaging evidence of rim-associated myeloid activation; other ROI involvement aligns with growing recognition of diffuse and compartmentalized inflammation beyond focal lesions. 43 ,e12,e37-38 NAWM, from which many studies have selected a cluster to serve as a pseudo-reference region, 22,33 ,e8-9,e11 showed significant MS-control differences in pooled analyses. Similar patterns were observed for the thalamus, cortex, and whole brain, which have also been used as normalization regions and included in analyses here. e1,e2,e24 These findings suggest that these regions may be better suited as target ROIs for detecting MS-related inflammatory changes, instead of reference normalization regions in MS populations. ROIs reported also accounted for a substantial proportion of between-study heterogeneity, exceeding the contribution of tracer selection and image analysis method, underscoring the importance of anatomical selection in TSPO-PET study design and interpretation. Together, these results support careful selection and validation of reference regions and ROIs in TSPO-PET MS studies and favor disease-sensitive regions as targets rather than normalization baselines.

When accounted for all mentioned heterogeneity sources using a multivariate model with CRV, an even greater difference between PwMS and HC in TSPO-PET signal was found, accounting for 48.27% of the initial heterogeneity. However, significant heterogeneity remained. Thus, additional unaccounted sources of heterogeneity were explored, one of which was MS disease course.

Individual participant data analyses were limited by small numbers of independent cohorts, constraining statistical power and precision. The effect sizes were small, and the absence of consistent or stronger associations should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of no relationship but in the context of limited patient-level data. Similarly, ROI-stratified correlations involve multiple testing and limited data. Therefore, these findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating, with additional data needed to better understand these relationships across studies.

Several limitations should be considered. In addition to patient-level data availability, disease activity status at the time of imaging was inconsistently reported, restricting assessment of active vs inactive inflammatory states. Data on disease-modifying therapies exposure were incomplete and heterogeneous, with many studies not reporting patient-level data, precluding formal evaluation of treatment effects on TSPO-PET signal despite the likelihood that immunomodulatory therapies may influence TSPO-PET signal differently. e25 TSPO binding polymorphism status was also not consistently reported, preventing assessment of genotype-related signal variability. Only one study presented separate results for Gd enhancing (Gd+) T 1 lesions 25 and one for Gd+ T 2 lesions, e11 while most did not make a distinction. Thus, all lesions were pooled together as T 1 or T 2 -weighted in analysis, causing a possible source of heterogeneity in our results. Additional limitations related to data availability and reporting are summarized in eTable 3. PVC practices were inconsistently reported, and thus, PVC effects were not examined. Potentially relevant clinical and biological covariates including comorbid conditions (e.g., depressive symptoms), which may affect TSPO-PET signal were not analyzed due to limited reporting across studies.

In conclusion, TSPO-PET distinguishes MS from HC and across subtypes, with regional indication of some correspondence with disability. However, findings are strongly influenced by methodological heterogeneity, sparse patient-level reporting, and inconsistent outcome measures, highlighting the need for greater standardization in study design and reporting, raw data transparency, and larger multimodal studies to clarify its relationship to disease progression and treatment response.

Glossary

2-tissue compartment model

supervised cluster algorithm with 4 predefined clusters

supervised cluster algorithm with 10 predefined clusters

binding potential, nondisplaceable

cluster robust variance

disease-modifying therapies

distribution volume ratio

Expanded Disability Status Scale

plasma free fraction

glial activity load on PET Z score

gadolinium enhancing

gadolinium nonenhancing

grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation

gray matter

high affinity binding

healthy controls

degree of heterogeneity

image-derived input function

low affinity binding

Logan referenced tissue model

multilinear analysis 1

medium affinity binding

maximum

medical subject headings

minimum

multiple sclerosis

multiple sclerosis severity score

number

normal-appearing gray matter

normal-appearing white matter

population, intervention, comparison, outcome

progressive multiple sclerosis

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

partial volume correction

patients with multiple sclerosis

quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2

coefficient of determination

random-effects model

region of interest

relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

supervised cluster algorithm

symbol digit modalities test Z-score

standardized mean difference

simplified reference tissue model

standardized uptake value

standardized uptake value ratio

18-kDa translocator protein

volume of distribution

Vt divided by plasma free fraction

white matter

Author Contributions

A. Madani Neishaboori: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; major role in the acquisition of data; analysis or interpretation of data. M. Agarwal: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. A. Kalinsky: major role in the acquisition of data; analysis or interpretation of data. J.P. Lofaso: major role in the acquisition of data; analysis or interpretation of data. G. Rampilla: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. E.A. Kras: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. S.C. Nagy: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. J.G. Cooper: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. S. Ai: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. C.K. Zhang: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. K. Friedrichsen: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. M. Brier: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; analysis or interpretation of data. A.M. Chaney: drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; major role in the acquisition of data; study concept or design; analysis or interpretation of data.

Study Funding

This work was supported by the NIH under award number (R00AG070105). This manuscript is the result of funding in whole or in part by the NIH. It is subject to the NIH Public Access Policy. Through acceptance of this federal funding, NIH has been given a right to make this manuscript publicly available in PubMed Central upon the Official Date of Publication, as defined by NIH.

Disclosure

The authors report no relevant disclosures. Go to Neurology.org/NN for full disclosures.

References

1. Hernández-Pedro NY, Espinosa-Ramirez G, de la Cruz VP, Pineda B, Sotelo J. Initial immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis: innate immune response. Clin Dev Immunol. 2013;2013:413465. doi: 10.1155/2013/413465

2. Peferoen LA, Vogel DY, Ummenthum K, et al. Activation status of human microglia is dependent on lesion formation stage and remyelination in multiple sclerosis. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2015;74(1):48-63. doi: 10.1097/nen.0000000000000149

3. Scalfari A, Traboulsee A, Oh J, et al. Smouldering-associated worsening in multiple sclerosis: an international consensus statement on definition, biology, clinical implications, and future directions. Ann Neurol. 2024;96(5):826-845. doi: 10.1002/ana.27034

4. Subhramanyam CS, Wang C, Hu Q, Dheen ST. Microglia-mediated neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2019;94:112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2019.05.004

5. O'Loughlin E, Madore C, Lassmann H, Butovsky O. Microglial phenotypes and functions in multiple sclerosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8(2):a028993. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a028993

6. Kuhlmann T, Ludwin S, Prat A, Antel J, Brück W, Lassmann H. An updated histological classification system for multiple sclerosis lesions. Acta Neuropathologica. 2017;133(1):13-24. doi: 10.1007/s00401-016-1653-y

7. Fischer MT, Sharma R, Lim JL, et al. NADPH oxidase expression in active multiple sclerosis lesions in relation to oxidative tissue damage and mitochondrial injury. Brain. 2012;135(Pt 3):886-899. doi: 10.1093/brain/aws012

8. Frischer JM, Weigand SD, Guo Y, et al. Clinical and pathological insights into the dynamic nature of the white matter multiple sclerosis plaque. Ann Neurol. 2015;78(5):710-721. doi: 10.1002/ana.24497

9. Cumbers GA, Harvey-Latham ED, Kassiou M, Werry EL, Danon JJ. Emerging TSPO-PET radiotracers for imaging neuroinflammation: a critical analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 2024;54(6):856-874. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2024.09.007

10. Nutma E, Stephenson JA, Gorter RP, et al. A quantitative neuropathological assessment of translocator protein expression in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2019;142(11):3440-3455. doi: 10.1093/brain/awz287

11. Papadopoulos V, Lecanu L, Brown RC, Han Z, Yao ZX. Peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor in neurosteroid biosynthesis, neuropathology and neurological disorders. Neuroscience. 2006;138(3):749-756. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.05.063

12. Nutma E, Gebro E, Marzin MC, et al. Activated microglia do not increase 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) expression in the multiple sclerosis brain. Glia. 2021;69(10):2447-2458. doi: 10.1002/glia.24052

13. Owen DR, Yeo AJ, Gunn RN, et al. An 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO) polymorphism explains differences in binding affinity of the PET radioligand PBR28. J Cereb Blood flow Metab. 2012;32(1):1-5. doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2011.147

14. Ikawa M, Lohith TG, Shrestha S, et al. 11C-ER176, a radioligand for 18-kDa translocator protein, has adequate sensitivity to robustly image all three affinity genotypes in human brain. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(2):320-325. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.178996

15. Vettermann FJ, Harris S, Schmitt J, et al. Impact of TSPO receptor polymorphism on [ 18 F]GE-180 binding in healthy brain and pseudo-reference regions of neurooncological and neurodegenerative disorders. Life (Basel). 2021;11(6):484. doi: 10.3390/life11060484

16. Airas L, Rissanen E, Rinne JO. Imaging neuroinflammation in multiple sclerosis using TSPO-PET. Clin Translational Imaging. 2015;3(6):461-473. doi: 10.1007/s40336-015-0147-6

17. Guido G, Preziosa P, Filippi M, Rocca MA. TSPO PET in multiple sclerosis: emerging insights into pathophysiology, prognosis, and treatment monitoring. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2025;100:106546. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2025.106546

18. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

19. Debruyne JC, Versijpt J, Van Laere KJ, et al. PET visualization of microglia in multiple sclerosis patients using [11C]PK11195. Eur J Neurol. 2003;10(3):257-264. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2003.00571.x

20. Versijpt J, Debruyne JC, Van Laere KJ, et al. Microglial imaging with positron emission tomography and atrophy measurements with magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: a correlative study. Mult Scler. 2005;11(2):127-134. doi: 10.1191/1352458505ms1140oa

21. Singhal T, O'Connor K, Dubey S, et al. 18F-PBR06 versus 11C-PBR28 PET for assessing white matter translocator protein binding in multiple sclerosis. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43(9):e289-e295. doi: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000002179

22. Barletta VT, Herranz E, Treaba CA, et al. In vivo characterization of microglia and myelin relation in multiple sclerosis by combined 11C-PBR28 PET and synthetic MRI. J Neurol. 2023;270(6):3091-3102. doi: 10.1007/s00415-023-11621-5

23. Nylund M, Sucksdorff M, Matilainen M, Polvinen E, Tuisku J, Airas L. Phenotyping of multiple sclerosis lesions according to innate immune cell activation using 18 kDa translocator protein-PET. Brain Commun. 2022;4(1):fcab301. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcab301

24. Lehto J, Nylund M, Matilainen M, et al. Longitudinal stability of progression-related microglial activity during teriflunomide treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2023;30(8):2365-2375. doi: 10.1111/ene.15834

25. Rissanen E, Tuisku J, Vahlberg T, et al. Microglial activation, white matter tract damage, and disability in MS. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2018;5(3):e443. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000443

26. Colasanti A, Guo Q, Muhlert N, et al. In vivo assessment of brain white matter inflammation in multiple sclerosis with (18)F-PBR111 PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(7):1112-1118. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.113.135129

27. Saraste M, Matilainen M, Vuorimaa A, et al. Association of serum neurofilament light with microglial activation in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2023;94(9):698-706. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-331051

28. Team RC. RA Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.

29. Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261-293. doi: 10.3102/10769986030003261

30. Bell RM, McCaffrey DF. Bias reduction in standard errors for linear regression with multi-stage samples. Surv Methodol. 2002;28(2):169-182.

31. Pustejovsky JE, Tipton E. Small-sample methods for cluster-robust variance estimation and hypothesis testing in fixed effects models. J Business Econ Stat. 2018;36(4):672-683. doi: 10.1080/07350015.2016.1247004

32. Herranz E, Giannì C, Louapre C, et al. Neuroinflammatory component of gray matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2016;80(5):776-790. doi: 10.1002/ana.24791

33. Barletta VT, Herranz E, Treaba CA, et al. Evidence of diffuse cerebellar neuroinflammation in multiple sclerosis by 11C-PBR28 MR-PET. Multi Scler. 2020;26(6):668-678. doi: 10.1177/1352458519843048

34. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10(1):101-129. doi: 10.2307/3001666

35. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186

36. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088-1101. doi: 10.2307/2533446

37. Zeileis A, Köll S, Graham N. Various versatile variances: an object-oriented implementation of clustered covariances in R. J. Stat. Soft.; 95:1-36; 10.18637/jss.v095.i01 (2020).

38. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009

39. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol. 2011;69(2):292-302. doi: 10.1002/ana.22366

40. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311-1316. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004

41. Rissanen E, Tuisku J, Rokka J, et al. In vivo detection of diffuse inflammation in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using PET imaging and the radioligand 11 C-PK11195. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(6):939-944. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.113.131698

42. Poirion E, Tonietto M, Lejeune F-X, et al. Structural and clinical correlates of a periventricular gradient of neuroinflammation in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2021;96(14):e1865-e1875. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011700

43. Kaunzner UW, Kang Y, Zhang S, et al. Quantitative susceptibility mapping identifies inflammation in a subset of chronic multiple sclerosis lesions. Brain. 2018;142(1):133-145. doi: 10.1093/brain/awy296

44. Tommasin S, Giannì C, Treaba CA, et al. The association between white matter chronic inflammation and degeneration in multiple sclerosis: a combined (11)C-PBR28 PET-MRI study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2025;96:106350. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2025.106350

45. Vomacka L, Albert NL, Lindner S, et al. TSPO imaging using the novel PET ligand [(18)F]GE-180: quantification approaches in patients with multiple sclerosis. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13550-017-0340-x

46. Tozlu C, Jamison K, Kang Y, et al. TSPO-PET reveals higher inflammation in white matter disrupted by paramagnetic rim lesions in multiple sclerosis. bioRxiv. 2025:2025.01.03.627857. doi: 10.1101/2025.01.03.627857

47. Ahola V, Saraste M, Nylund M, et al. Plasma CHI3L1 associates with brain volume loss and glial activation in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2025;96(11):1053-1060. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2025-336063

48. Banati RB, Newcombe J, Gunn RN, et al. The peripheral benzodiazepine binding site in the brain in multiple sclerosis: quantitative in vivo imaging of microglia as a measure of disease activity. Brain. 2000;123(11):2321-2337. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.11.2321

49. Bezukladova S, Tuisku J, Matilainen M, et al. Insights into disseminated MS brain pathology with multimodal diffusion tensor and PET imaging. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020;7(3):e691. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000691

50. Bodini B, Poirion E, Tonietto M, et al. Individual mapping of innate immune cell activation is a candidate marker of patient-specific trajectories of worsening disability in multiple sclerosis. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(7):1043-1049. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.231340

eReferences are available as Supplementary Material at Neurology.org/NN .

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request.