OBJECTIVES: To explore the atrophy rate of entorhinal cortex (ERC) in AD and normal aging and assess the value of rate measurement of ERC atrophy for classifying subjects with AD from cognitively normal (CN) control subjects. METHODS: Twenty-one AD patients and 23 CN subjects had MRI scans and clinical evaluations twice within 1.8 +/- 0.6 years. ERC volumes were manually measured on volumetric T1-weighted MR images. RESULTS: Patients with AD had a greater annual percentage volume change of ERC than CN subjects on both sides (left: 6.8 +/- 4.3%/year for AD vs 1.4 +/- 2.5%/year for CN [F(1,42) = 25.6, p < 0.001]; right: 6.3 +/- 3.3%/year for AD vs 1.4 +/- 2.3%/year for CN [F(1,42) = 25.6, p < 0.001]). Furthermore, increased ERC atrophy rate was correlated (r = -0.56, p = 0.01) with decreased memory performance in AD. CN subjects had on average annual ERC atrophy rates greater than zero (p < 0.01). Baseline volume of ERC predicted atrophy rate of ERC (left: r = -0.53, p < 0.01; right: r = -0.42, p < 0.05) in CN subjects but not in AD subjects. Using ERC baseline volumes alone resulted in 77% overall correct classification (p < 0.01) between AD and CN subjects, with 76% sensitivity and 78% specificity and an area under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.83. Adding annual atrophy rate of ERC to the model accounted for most of the variance (p < 0.01), diminishing contributions from baseline volume and yielding 82% overall classification, with 76% sensitivity and 86% specificity and an area under the ROC curve of 0.93. CONCLUSION: ERC volume loss over time may be a better indicator for AD than cross-sectional measurements.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the atrophy rate of entorhinal cortex (ERC) in AD and normal aging and assess the value of rate measurement of ERC atrophy for classifying subjects with AD from cognitively normal (CN) control subjects. METHODS: Twenty-one ADpatients and 23 CN subjects had MRI scans and clinical evaluations twice within 1.8 +/- 0.6 years. ERC volumes were manually measured on volumetric T1-weighted MR images. RESULTS:Patients with AD had a greater annual percentage volume change of ERC than CN subjects on both sides (left: 6.8 +/- 4.3%/year for AD vs 1.4 +/- 2.5%/year for CN [F(1,42) = 25.6, p < 0.001]; right: 6.3 +/- 3.3%/year for AD vs 1.4 +/- 2.3%/year for CN [F(1,42) = 25.6, p < 0.001]). Furthermore, increased ERC atrophy rate was correlated (r = -0.56, p = 0.01) with decreased memory performance in AD. CN subjects had on average annual ERC atrophy rates greater than zero (p < 0.01). Baseline volume of ERC predicted atrophy rate of ERC (left: r = -0.53, p < 0.01; right: r = -0.42, p < 0.05) in CN subjects but not in AD subjects. Using ERC baseline volumes alone resulted in 77% overall correct classification (p < 0.01) between AD and CN subjects, with 76% sensitivity and 78% specificity and an area under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.83. Adding annual atrophy rate of ERC to the model accounted for most of the variance (p < 0.01), diminishing contributions from baseline volume and yielding 82% overall classification, with 76% sensitivity and 86% specificity and an area under the ROC curve of 0.93. CONCLUSION: ERC volume loss over time may be a better indicator for AD than cross-sectional measurements.
Authors: Stefan J Teipel; Wolfram Bayer; Gene E Alexander; York Zebuhr; Diane Teichberg; Luka Kulic; Marc B Schapiro; Hans-Jürgen Möller; Stanley I Rapoport; Harald Hampel Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2002-02
Authors: Y Xu; C R Jack; P C O'Brien; E Kokmen; G E Smith; R J Ivnik; B F Boeve; R G Tangalos; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-05-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: C R Jack; R C Petersen; Y Xu; P C O'Brien; G E Smith; R J Ivnik; B F Boeve; E G Tangalos; E Kokmen Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-08-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: A T Du; N Schuff; D Amend; M P Laakso; Y Y Hsu; W J Jagust; K Yaffe; J H Kramer; B Reed; D Norman; H C Chui; M W Weiner Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: R J Killiany; T Gomez-Isla; M Moss; R Kikinis; T Sandor; F Jolesz; R Tanzi; K Jones; B T Hyman; M S Albert Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Rachael I Scahill; Jonathan M Schott; John M Stevens; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-04-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mert R Sabuncu; Randy L Buckner; Jordan W Smoller; Phil Hyoun Lee; Bruce Fischl; Reisa A Sperling Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Madhav Thambisetty; Jing Wan; Aaron Carass; Yang An; Jerry L Prince; Susan M Resnick Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-05-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: F Streitparth; G Wieners; A Kämena; R J Schröder; H Stiepani; T Kokocinski; R Röttgen; E Steinhagen-Thiessen; R Lenzen-Grossimlimghaus; N Hidajat Journal: Radiologe Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Owen T Carmichael; Lewis H Kuller; Oscar L Lopez; Paul M Thompson; Rebecca A Dutton; Allen Lu; Sharon E Lee; Jessica Y Lee; Howard J Aizenstein; Carolyn C Meltzer; Yanxi Liu; Arthur W Toga; James T Becker Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2007 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: An-Tao Du; Norbert Schuff; Linda L Chao; John Kornak; William J Jagust; Joel H Kramer; Bruce R Reed; Bruce L Miller; David Norman; Helena C Chui; Michael W Weiner Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2005-06-14 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Leon J Thal; Kejal Kantarci; Eric M Reiman; William E Klunk; Michael W Weiner; Henrik Zetterberg; Douglas Galasko; Domenico Praticò; Sue Griffin; Dale Schenk; Eric Siemers Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Winnie S Liang; Travis Dunckley; Thomas G Beach; Andrew Grover; Diego Mastroeni; Douglas G Walker; Richard J Caselli; Walter A Kukull; Daniel McKeel; John C Morris; Christine Hulette; Donald Schmechel; Gene E Alexander; Eric M Reiman; Joseph Rogers; Dietrich A Stephan Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Anders M Fjell; Kristine B Walhovd; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Linda K McEvoy; Donald J Hagler; Dominic Holland; James B Brewer; Anders M Dale Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 6.167