Hi Keira - I’ve only just seen I was cited by name in this one, so thanks for the trust and confidence, but I’m not sure I can clarify.
Usually, “hyperintensities” are used fairly interchangeably with “lesions” - especially in someone who’s already had confirmed lesions in the past.
I would say that “hyperintensities” tend to correspond more to radiographer-speak, leaving it to the diagnostic expert (the neuro) to confirm what those hyperintensities actually mean in health terms, and whether they are demyleninating lesions, or something else.
It does seem unusual to expressly exclude lesions, but then say there were areas of hyperintensity.
Sorry, but all I’m really getting from this is that the results must have been ambiguous. They saw some kind of anomaly, but couldn’t say with high confidence that it was a lesion or lesions, even though that seems the obvious explanation, in someone who’s already had some.
I suppose now, it’s up to the interpretive skill of the neuro, and whether he’s satisfied these “hyperintensities” do, in fact, represent lesions, or whether he thinks it’s low confidence, and you still need to await more evidence.
I sometimes think it does more harm than good to send out these MRI reports before they’ve been through the interpretive lens of the neuro. I know it’s your right to know what’s being said about you and all that, but if nobody has translated it into plain English for you, what’s the point?