PURPOSE: To quantify the effect sizes of regional metabolic and morphometric measures in patients with preclinical and mild Alzheimer disease (AD) to aid in the identification of noninvasive biomarkers for the early detection of AD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted with institutional review board approval and in compliance with HIPAA regulations. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant or participant's legal guardian. Fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging data were analyzed from 80 healthy control (HC) subjects, 68 individuals with AD, and 156 with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 69 of whom had single-domain amnestic MCI. Regions of interest (ROIs) were derived after coregistering FDG PET and MR images by using high-throughput, subject-specific procedures. The Cohen d effect sizes were calculated for 42 predefined ROIs across the brain. Statistical comparison of the largest overall effect sizes for MR imaging and PET was performed. Metabolic effect sizes were determined with and without accounting for regional atrophy. Discriminative accuracy of ROIs showing the largest effect sizes were compared by calculating receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: For all disease groups, the hippocampus showed the largest morphometric effect size and the entorhinal cortex showed the largest metabolic effect size. In mild AD, the Cohen d effect size for hippocampal volume (1.92) was significantly larger (P < .05) than that for entorhinal metabolism (1.43). Regression of regional atrophy substantially reduced most metabolic effects. For all group comparisons, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were significantly larger for hippocampal volume than for entorhinal metabolism. CONCLUSION: The current results show no evidence that FDG PET is more sensitive than MR imaging to the degeneration occurring in preclinical and mild AD, suggesting that an MR imaging finding may be a more practical clinical biomarker for early detection of AD. (c) RSNA, 2010.
PURPOSE: To quantify the effect sizes of regional metabolic and morphometric measures in patients with preclinical and mild Alzheimer disease (AD) to aid in the identification of noninvasive biomarkers for the early detection of AD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted with institutional review board approval and in compliance with HIPAA regulations. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant or participant's legal guardian. Fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging data were analyzed from 80 healthy control (HC) subjects, 68 individuals with AD, and 156 with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 69 of whom had single-domain amnestic MCI. Regions of interest (ROIs) were derived after coregistering FDG PET and MR images by using high-throughput, subject-specific procedures. The Cohen d effect sizes were calculated for 42 predefined ROIs across the brain. Statistical comparison of the largest overall effect sizes for MR imaging and PET was performed. Metabolic effect sizes were determined with and without accounting for regional atrophy. Discriminative accuracy of ROIs showing the largest effect sizes were compared by calculating receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: For all disease groups, the hippocampus showed the largest morphometric effect size and the entorhinal cortex showed the largest metabolic effect size. In mild AD, the Cohen d effect size for hippocampal volume (1.92) was significantly larger (P < .05) than that for entorhinal metabolism (1.43). Regression of regional atrophy substantially reduced most metabolic effects. For all group comparisons, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were significantly larger for hippocampal volume than for entorhinal metabolism. CONCLUSION: The current results show no evidence that FDG PET is more sensitive than MR imaging to the degeneration occurring in preclinical and mild AD, suggesting that an MR imaging finding may be a more practical clinical biomarker for early detection of AD. (c) RSNA, 2010.
Authors: Felice T Sun; Roberta A Schriber; Joel M Greenia; Jiawei He; Amy Gitcho; William J Jagust Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-11-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: G Chételat; B Desgranges; B Landeau; F Mézenge; J B Poline; V de la Sayette; F Viader; F Eustache; J-C Baron Journal: Brain Date: 2007-12-05 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: K B Walhovd; A M Fjell; I Amlien; R Grambaite; V Stenset; A Bjørnerud; I Reinvang; L Gjerstad; T Cappelen; P Due-Tønnessen; T Fladby Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Lisa Mosconi; Rachel Mistur; Remigiusz Switalski; Wai Hon Tsui; Lidia Glodzik; Yi Li; Elizabeth Pirraglia; Susan De Santi; Barry Reisberg; Thomas Wisniewski; Mony J de Leon Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christine Fennema-Notestine; Donald J Hagler; Linda K McEvoy; Adam S Fleisher; Elaine H Wu; David S Karow; Anders M Dale Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Linda K McEvoy; Christine Fennema-Notestine; J Cooper Roddey; Donald J Hagler; Dominic Holland; David S Karow; Christopher J Pung; James B Brewer; Anders M Dale Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K B Walhovd; A M Fjell; J Brewer; L K McEvoy; C Fennema-Notestine; D J Hagler; R G Jennings; D Karow; A M Dale Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jennifer L Whitwell; Ronald C Petersen; Selamawit Negash; Stephen D Weigand; Kejal Kantarci; Robert J Ivnik; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Glenn E Smith; Clifford R Jack Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2007-08
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Matt A Bernstein; Nick C Fox; Paul Thompson; Gene Alexander; Danielle Harvey; Bret Borowski; Paula J Britson; Jennifer L Whitwell; Chadwick Ward; Anders M Dale; Joel P Felmlee; Jeffrey L Gunter; Derek L G Hill; Ron Killiany; Norbert Schuff; Sabrina Fox-Bosetti; Chen Lin; Colin Studholme; Charles S DeCarli; Gunnar Krueger; Heidi A Ward; Gregory J Metzger; Katherine T Scott; Richard Mallozzi; Daniel Blezek; Joshua Levy; Josef P Debbins; Adam S Fleisher; Marilyn Albert; Robert Green; George Bartzokis; Gary Glover; John Mugler; Michael W Weiner Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Enchi Liu; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Mark E Schmidt; Leslie Shaw; Judith A Siuciak; Holly Soares; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: María C Rodriguez-Oroz; Belen Gago; Pedro Clavero; Manuel Delgado-Alvarado; David Garcia-Garcia; Haritz Jimenez-Urbieta Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Anna Caroli; Annapaola Prestia; Sara Wade; Kewei Chen; Napatkamon Ayutyanont; Susan M Landau; Cindee M Madison; Cathleen Haense; Karl Herholz; Eric M Reiman; William J Jagust; Giovanni B Frisoni Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2015 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Jennifer L Shaffer; Jeffrey R Petrella; Forrest C Sheldon; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Vince D Calhoun; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicole M Lewandowski; Yvette Bordelon; Adam M Brickman; Sergio Angulo; Usman Khan; Jordan Muraskin; Erica Y Griffith; Paula Wasserman; Liliana Menalled; Jean Paul Vonsattel; Karen Marder; Scott A Small; Herman Moreno Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 5.996