BACKGROUND: Decreased callosal size and anisotropy have been described in schizophrenia patients but their longitudinal progression remains poorly understood. METHODS: We performed diffusion-tensor and structural magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at follow-up four years later in 49 chronic schizophrenia patients and 16 healthy comparison subjects. Schizophrenia patients were subdivided into good-outcome (n=23) and poor-outcome (n=26) groups. Baseline-to-follow-up changes in size, shape, position and fractional anisotropy of the corpus callosum, divided into five sagittal sections and five rostro-caudal segments, were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline scan and in comparison to healthy subjects, schizophrenia patients displayed 1) smaller callosal size, 2) lower average anisotropy in all sagittal sections except the midline, and 3) more dorsal average coordinate position. During the four years after the baseline scan, patients with schizophrenia exhibited a more pronounced decline in absolute size of the corpus callosum than healthy comparison subjects. As compared with the good-outcome group, the corpus callosum in poor-outcome patients at baseline was of smaller size and lower average anisotropy, more elongated and posteriorly positioned. During the follow-up interval, poor-outcome patients displayed a more pronounced decline in size but less pronounced decline in anisotropy of the corpus callosum than patients with good outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in callosal size between schizophrenia patients and healthy subjects seen at baseline continue to widen in the chronic phase of the illness, especially in patients with poor functional outcome. Baseline differences in callosal anisotropy among patients with different outcomes, however, diminish over time.
BACKGROUND: Decreased callosal size and anisotropy have been described in schizophreniapatients but their longitudinal progression remains poorly understood. METHODS: We performed diffusion-tensor and structural magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at follow-up four years later in 49 chronic schizophreniapatients and 16 healthy comparison subjects. Schizophreniapatients were subdivided into good-outcome (n=23) and poor-outcome (n=26) groups. Baseline-to-follow-up changes in size, shape, position and fractional anisotropy of the corpus callosum, divided into five sagittal sections and five rostro-caudal segments, were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline scan and in comparison to healthy subjects, schizophreniapatients displayed 1) smaller callosal size, 2) lower average anisotropy in all sagittal sections except the midline, and 3) more dorsal average coordinate position. During the four years after the baseline scan, patients with schizophrenia exhibited a more pronounced decline in absolute size of the corpus callosum than healthy comparison subjects. As compared with the good-outcome group, the corpus callosum in poor-outcome patients at baseline was of smaller size and lower average anisotropy, more elongated and posteriorly positioned. During the follow-up interval, poor-outcome patients displayed a more pronounced decline in size but less pronounced decline in anisotropy of the corpus callosum than patients with good outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in callosal size between schizophreniapatients and healthy subjects seen at baseline continue to widen in the chronic phase of the illness, especially in patients with poor functional outcome. Baseline differences in callosal anisotropy among patients with different outcomes, however, diminish over time.
Authors: G Venkatasubramanian; P N Jayakumar; B N Gangadhar; N Janakiramaiah; D K Subbakrishna; M S Keshavan Journal: Neurol India Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: M F Casanova; M Zito; T E Goldberg; R L Suddath; E F Torrey; L B Bigelow; R D Sanders; D R Weinberger Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 1990-07-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: J E Downhill; M S Buchsbaum; T Wei; J Spiegel-Cohen; E A Hazlett; M M Haznedar; J Silverman; L J Siever Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2000-05-05 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: M S Keshavan; V A Diwadkar; K Harenski; D R Rosenberg; J A Sweeney; J W Pettegrew Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: M Kubicki; M Styner; S Bouix; G Gerig; D Markant; K Smith; R Kikinis; R W McCarley; M E Shenton Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Joseph I Friedman; Cheuk Tang; David Carpenter; Monte Buchsbaum; James Schmeidler; Lauren Flanagan; Shana Golembo; Isabella Kanellopoulou; Johnny Ng; Patrick R Hof; Philip D Harvey; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Daniel Stewart; Kenneth L Davis Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2008-06-16 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Vaibhav A Diwadkar; Michael D DeBellis; John A Sweeney; Jay W Pettegrew; Matcheri S Keshavan Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Philip D Harvey; Abraham Reichenberg; Christopher R Bowie; Thomas L Patterson; Robert K Heaton Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Emily C Balevich; M Mehmet Haznedar; Eugene Wang; Randall E Newmark; Rachel Bloom; Jason S Schneiderman; Jonathan Aronowitz; Cheuk Y Tang; King-Wai Chu; William Byne; Monte S Buchsbaum; Erin A Hazlett Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Ralf Tepest; Christopher J Schwarzbach; Barbara Krug; Joachim Klosterkötter; Stephan Ruhrmann; Kai Vogeley Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Vicente Molina; Carmen Martín; Alejandro Ballesteros; Alba G Seco de Herrera; Juan Antonio Hernández-Tamames Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Sarah L M Johnson; Deanna Greenstein; Liv Clasen; Rachel Miller; Francois Lalonde; Judith Rapoport; Nitin Gogtay Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: P Brambilla; C Perlini; P Rajagopalan; P Saharan; G Rambaldelli; M Bellani; N Dusi; R Cerini; R Pozzi Mucelli; M Tansella; P M Thompson Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 9.319