PURPOSE: To investigate the assessment of global cortical atrophy (GCA), medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA), and white matter changes (WMCs) in patients screened at a memory clinic with a 64-detector row computed tomography (CT) brain protocol, in comparison with the reference standard, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the local institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Thirty patients (21 men, nine women; median age, 62 years) who presented to a memory clinic underwent 64-detector row CT and multisequence MR imaging of the brain on the same day. Three readers blinded to the clinical diagnosis assessed the resultant images. Images were presented in random order and scored for GCA, MTA, and WMC with published visual rating scales. Intermodality agreement between CT and MR imaging (intrareader agreement across both modalities), expressed by weighted kappa analysis, and interobserver agreement within each modality between readers (Kendall W test) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, excellent intraobserver agreement between CT and MR imaging was observed for GCA (mean kappa, 0.83) and MTA (mean kappa, 0.88 and 0.86 on the left and right sides of the brain, respectively). There was substantial overall agreement concerning WMC (mean kappa, 0.79). For all three tested scales, interobserver variability was low and comparable for CT and MR imaging. CONCLUSION: Use of 64-detector row brain CT yields reliable information that is comparable with that obtained with MR imaging. Thus, multidetector row CT is a suitable diagnostic imaging tool in a memory clinic setting.
PURPOSE: To investigate the assessment of global cortical atrophy (GCA), medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA), and white matter changes (WMCs) in patients screened at a memory clinic with a 64-detector row computed tomography (CT) brain protocol, in comparison with the reference standard, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the local institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Thirty patients (21 men, nine women; median age, 62 years) who presented to a memory clinic underwent 64-detector row CT and multisequence MR imaging of the brain on the same day. Three readers blinded to the clinical diagnosis assessed the resultant images. Images were presented in random order and scored for GCA, MTA, and WMC with published visual rating scales. Intermodality agreement between CT and MR imaging (intrareader agreement across both modalities), expressed by weighted kappa analysis, and interobserver agreement within each modality between readers (Kendall W test) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, excellent intraobserver agreement between CT and MR imaging was observed for GCA (mean kappa, 0.83) and MTA (mean kappa, 0.88 and 0.86 on the left and right sides of the brain, respectively). There was substantial overall agreement concerning WMC (mean kappa, 0.79). For all three tested scales, interobserver variability was low and comparable for CT and MR imaging. CONCLUSION: Use of 64-detector row brain CT yields reliable information that is comparable with that obtained with MR imaging. Thus, multidetector row CT is a suitable diagnostic imaging tool in a memory clinic setting.
Authors: Francesco Arba; Benedetta Piccardi; Vanessa Palumbo; Betti Giusti; Patrizia Nencini; Anna Maria Gori; Alice Sereni; Mascia Nesi; Giovanni Pracucci; Giorgio Bono; Paolo Bovi; Enrico Fainardi; Domenico Consoli; Antonia Nucera; Francesca Massaro; Giovanni Orlandi; Francesco Perini; Rossana Tassi; Maria Sessa; Danilo Toni; Rosanna Abbate; Domenico Inzitari Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Ingrid S van Maurik; Marissa D Zwan; Betty M Tijms; Femke H Bouwman; Charlotte E Teunissen; Philip Scheltens; Mike P Wattjes; Frederik Barkhof; Johannes Berkhof; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Juha R Koikkalainen; Hanneke F M Rhodius-Meester; Kristian S Frederiksen; Marie Bruun; Steen G Hasselbalch; Marta Baroni; Patrizia Mecocci; Ritva Vanninen; Anne Remes; Hilkka Soininen; Mark van Gils; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Frederik Barkhof; Timo Erkinjuntti; Jyrki M P Lötjönen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: P J Olesen; X Guo; D Gustafson; A Börjesson-Hanson; S Sacuíu; C Eckerström; E D Bigler; I Skoog Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Pervinder Bhogal; Colin Mahoney; Sophie Graeme-Baker; Amit Roy; Sachit Shah; Francesco Fraioli; Peter Cowley; Hans Rolf Jäger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Manja Lehmann; Esther L G E Koedam; Josephine Barnes; Jonathan W Bartlett; Natalie S Ryan; Yolande A L Pijnenburg; Frederik Barkhof; Mike P Wattjes; Philip Scheltens; Nick C Fox Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Charlotte L Allan; Enikõ Zsoldos; Nicola Filippini; Claire E Sexton; Anya Topiwala; Vyara Valkanova; Archana Singh-Manoux; Adam G Tabák; Martin J Shipley; Clare Mackay; Klaus P Ebmeier; Mika Kivimäki Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 9.319