OBJECTIVE: Direct neuronal loss or deafferentation of the putamen, a critical hub in corticostriatal circuits, may result in diverse and distinct cognitive and motoric dysfunction in neurodegenerative disease. Differential putaminal morphology, as a quantitative measure of corticostriatal integrity, may thus be evident in Huntington's disease (HD), Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), diseases with differential clinical dysfunction. METHODS: HD (n = 17), FTD (n = 33) and AD (n = 13) patients were diagnosed according to international consensus criteria and, with healthy controls (n = 17), were scanned on the same MRI scanner. Patients underwent brief cognitive testing using the Neuropsychiatry Unit Cognitive Assessment Tool (NUCOG). Ten MRI scans from this dataset were manually segmented as a training set for the Adaboost algorithm, which automatically segmented all remaining scans for the putamen, yielding the following subset of the data: 9 left and 12 right putamen segmentations for AD; 25 left and 26 right putamina for FTD; 16 left and 15 right putamina for HD; 12 left and 12 right putamina for controls. Shape analysis was performed at each point on the surface of each structure using a multiple regression controlling for age and sex to compare radial distance across diagnostic groups. RESULTS: Age, but not sex and intracranial volume (ICV), were significantly different in the segmentation subgroups by diagnosis. The AD group showed significantly poorer performance on cognitive testing than FTD. Mean putaminal volumes were HD < FTD < AD ≤ controls, controlling for age and ICV. The greatest putaminal shape deflation was evident in HD, followed by FTD, in regions corresponding to the interconnections to motoric cortex. CONCLUSIONS: Differential patterns of putaminal atrophy in HD, FTD and AD, with relevance to corticostriatal circuits, suggest the putamen may be a suitable clinical biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.
OBJECTIVE: Direct neuronal loss or deafferentation of the putamen, a critical hub in corticostriatal circuits, may result in diverse and distinct cognitive and motoric dysfunction in neurodegenerative disease. Differential putaminal morphology, as a quantitative measure of corticostriatal integrity, may thus be evident in Huntington's disease (HD), Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), diseases with differential clinical dysfunction. METHODS:HD (n = 17), FTD (n = 33) and AD (n = 13) patients were diagnosed according to international consensus criteria and, with healthy controls (n = 17), were scanned on the same MRI scanner. Patients underwent brief cognitive testing using the Neuropsychiatry Unit Cognitive Assessment Tool (NUCOG). Ten MRI scans from this dataset were manually segmented as a training set for the Adaboost algorithm, which automatically segmented all remaining scans for the putamen, yielding the following subset of the data: 9 left and 12 right putamen segmentations for AD; 25 left and 26 right putamina for FTD; 16 left and 15 right putamina for HD; 12 left and 12 right putamina for controls. Shape analysis was performed at each point on the surface of each structure using a multiple regression controlling for age and sex to compare radial distance across diagnostic groups. RESULTS:Age, but not sex and intracranial volume (ICV), were significantly different in the segmentation subgroups by diagnosis. The AD group showed significantly poorer performance on cognitive testing than FTD. Mean putaminal volumes were HD < FTD < AD ≤ controls, controlling for age and ICV. The greatest putaminal shape deflation was evident in HD, followed by FTD, in regions corresponding to the interconnections to motoric cortex. CONCLUSIONS: Differential patterns of putaminal atrophy in HD, FTD and AD, with relevance to corticostriatal circuits, suggest the putamen may be a suitable clinical biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.
Authors: S K Madsen; A J Ho; X Hua; P S Saharan; A W Toga; C R Jack; M W Weiner; P M Thompson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Jane S Paulsen; Peggy C Nopoulos; Elizabeth Aylward; Christopher A Ross; Hans Johnson; Vincent A Magnotta; Andrew Juhl; Ronald K Pierson; James Mills; Douglas Langbehn; Martha Nance Journal: Brain Res Bull Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Sarah J Tabrizi; Rachael I Scahill; Alexandra Durr; Raymund Ac Roos; Blair R Leavitt; Rebecca Jones; G Bernhard Landwehrmeyer; Nick C Fox; Hans Johnson; Stephen L Hicks; Christopher Kennard; David Craufurd; Chris Frost; Douglas R Langbehn; Ralf Reilmann; Julie C Stout Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Liana G Apostolova; Lisa Mosconi; Paul M Thompson; Amity E Green; Kristy S Hwang; Anthony Ramirez; Rachel Mistur; Wai H Tsui; Mony J de Leon Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: J C L Looi; L Svensson; O Lindberg; B B Zandbelt; P Ostberg; E Orndahl; L-O Wahlund Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-06-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jennifer L Whitwell; Scott A Przybelski; Stephen D Weigand; Robert J Ivnik; Prashanthi Vemuri; Jeffrey L Gunter; Matthew L Senjem; Maria M Shiung; Bradley F Boeve; David S Knopman; Joseph E Parisi; Dennis W Dickson; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Keith A Josephs Journal: Brain Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Corey T McMillan; Brian B Avants; Philip Cook; Lyle Ungar; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Jeffrey Cl Looi; Dennis Velakoulis; Mark Walterfang; Nellie Georgiou-Karistianis; Matthew D Macfarlane; Brian D Power; Christer Nilsson; Martin Styner; Paul M Thompson; Danielle Van Westen; Fiona A Wilkes; Lars-Olof Wahlund Journal: Australas Psychiatry Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 1.369
Authors: Matthew D Macfarlane; David Jakabek; Mark Walterfang; Susanna Vestberg; Dennis Velakoulis; Fiona A Wilkes; Christer Nilsson; Danielle van Westen; Jeffrey C L Looi; Alexander Frizell Santillo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240