OBJECTIVE: To investigate the added value of hippocampal atrophy rates over whole brain volume measurements on MRI in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and controls. METHODS: We included 64 patients with AD (67 +/- 9 years; F/M 38/26), 44 patients with MCI (71 +/- 6 years; 21/23), and 34 controls (67 +/- 9 years; 16/18). Two MR scans were performed (scan interval: 1.8 +/- 0.7 years; 1.0 T), using a coronal three-dimensional T1-weighted gradient echo sequence. At follow-up, 3 controls and 23 patients with MCI had progressed to AD. Hippocampi were manually delineated at baseline. Hippocampal atrophy rates were calculated using regional, nonlinear fluid registration. Whole brain baseline volumes and atrophy rates were determined using automated segmentation and registration tools. RESULTS: All MRI measures differed between groups (p < 0.005). For the distinction of MCI from controls, larger effect sizes of hippocampal measures were found compared to whole brain measures. Between MCI and AD, only whole brain atrophy rate differed significantly. Cox proportional hazards models (variables dichotomized by median) showed that within all patients without dementia, hippocampal baseline volume (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.5-22.2]), hippocampal atrophy rate (5.2 [1.9-14.3]), and whole brain atrophy rate (2.8 [1.1-7.2]) independently predicted progression to AD; the combination of low hippocampal volume and high atrophy rate yielded a HR of 61.1 (6.1-606.8). Within patients with MCI, only hippocampal baseline volume and atrophy rate predicted progression. CONCLUSION: Hippocampal measures, especially hippocampal atrophy rate, best discriminate mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from controls. Whole brain atrophy rate discriminates Alzheimer disease (AD) from MCI. Regional measures of hippocampal atrophy are the strongest predictors of progression to AD.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the added value of hippocampal atrophy rates over whole brain volume measurements on MRI in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and controls. METHODS: We included 64 patients with AD (67 +/- 9 years; F/M 38/26), 44 patients with MCI (71 +/- 6 years; 21/23), and 34 controls (67 +/- 9 years; 16/18). Two MR scans were performed (scan interval: 1.8 +/- 0.7 years; 1.0 T), using a coronal three-dimensional T1-weighted gradient echo sequence. At follow-up, 3 controls and 23 patients with MCI had progressed to AD. Hippocampi were manually delineated at baseline. Hippocampal atrophy rates were calculated using regional, nonlinear fluid registration. Whole brain baseline volumes and atrophy rates were determined using automated segmentation and registration tools. RESULTS: All MRI measures differed between groups (p < 0.005). For the distinction of MCI from controls, larger effect sizes of hippocampal measures were found compared to whole brain measures. Between MCI and AD, only whole brain atrophy rate differed significantly. Cox proportional hazards models (variables dichotomized by median) showed that within all patients without dementia, hippocampal baseline volume (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.5-22.2]), hippocampal atrophy rate (5.2 [1.9-14.3]), and whole brain atrophy rate (2.8 [1.1-7.2]) independently predicted progression to AD; the combination of low hippocampal volume and high atrophy rate yielded a HR of 61.1 (6.1-606.8). Within patients with MCI, only hippocampal baseline volume and atrophy rate predicted progression. CONCLUSION: Hippocampal measures, especially hippocampal atrophy rate, best discriminate mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from controls. Whole brain atrophy rate discriminates Alzheimer disease (AD) from MCI. Regional measures of hippocampal atrophy are the strongest predictors of progression to AD.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Yongyue Zhang; Mark Jenkinson; Jacqueline Chen; P M Matthews; Antonio Federico; Nicola De Stefano Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: V A Cardenas; A T Du; D Hardin; F Ezekiel; P Weber; W J Jagust; H C Chui; N Schuff; M W Weiner Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Henry Rusinek; Susan De Santi; Dina Frid; Wai-Hon Tsui; Chaim Y Tarshish; Antonio Convit; Mony J de Leon Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dennis Chan; John C Janssen; Jennifer L Whitwell; Hilary C Watt; Rhian Jenkins; Chris Frost; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-10-04 Impact factor: 79.321
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: G B Karas; P Scheltens; S A R B Rombouts; P J Visser; R A van Schijndel; N C Fox; F Barkhof Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jonathan M Schott; Nick C Fox; Chris Frost; Rachael I Scahill; John C Janssen; Dennis Chan; Rhian Jenkins; Martin N Rossor Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: John L Woodard; Michael A Sugarman; Kristy A Nielson; J Carson Smith; Michael Seidenberg; Sally Durgerian; Alissa Butts; Nathan Hantke; Melissa Lancaster; Monica A Matthews; Stephen M Rao Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Michelle C Carlson; Julie H Kuo; Yi-Fang Chuang; Vijay R Varma; Greg Harris; Marilyn S Albert; Kirk I Erickson; Arthur F Kramer; Jeanine M Parisi; Qian-Li Xue; Eriwn J Tan; Elizabeth K Tanner; Alden L Gross; Teresa E Seeman; Tara L Gruenewald; Sylvia McGill; George W Rebok; Linda P Fried Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Peng Yu; Jia Sun; Robin Wolz; Diane Stephenson; James Brewer; Nick C Fox; Patricia E Cole; Clifford R Jack; Derek L G Hill; Adam J Schwarz Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: W J P Henneman; H Vrenken; J Barnes; I C Sluimer; N A Verwey; M A Blankenstein; M Klein; N C Fox; P Scheltens; F Barkhof; W M van der Flier Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 9.910