| Literature DB >> 24466290 |
Katrin Weier1, Iris K Penner2, Stefano Magon1, Michael Amann3, Yvonne Naegelin1, Michaela Andelova1, Tobias Derfuss1, Christoph Stippich4, Ernst-Wilhelm Radue5, Ludwig Kappos1, Till Sprenger3.
Abstract
The cerebellum is known to be involved not only in motor but also cognitive and affective processes. Structural changes in the cerebellum in relation to cognitive dysfunction are an emerging topic in the field of neuro-psychiatric disorders. In Multiple Sclerosis (MS) cerebellar motor and cognitive dysfunction occur in parallel, early in the onset of the disease, and the cerebellum is one of the predilection sites of atrophy. This study is aimed at determining the relationship between cerebellar volumes, clinical cerebellar signs, cognitive functioning and fatigue in MS. Cerebellar volumetry was conducted using T1-weighted MPRAGE magnetic resonance imaging of 172 MS patients. All patients underwent a clinical and brief neuropsychological assessment (information processing speed, working memory), including fatigue testing. Patients with and without cerebellar signs differed significantly regarding normalized cerebellar total volume (nTCV), normalized brain volume (nBV) and whole brain T2 lesion volume (LV). Patients with cerebellar dysfunction likewise performed worse in cognitive tests. A regression analysis indicated that age and nTCV explained 26.3% of the variance in SDMT (symbol digit modalities test) performance. However, only age, T2 LV and nBV remained predictors in the full model (r(2) = 0.36). The full model for the prediction of PASAT (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test) scores (r(2) = 0.23) included age, cerebellar and T2 LV. In the case of fatigue, only age and nBV (r(2) = 0.17) emerged as significant predictors. These data support the view that cerebellar abnormalities contribute to disability, including cognitive impairment in MS. However, this contribution does not seem to be independent of, and may even be dominated by wider spread MS pathology as reflected by nBV and T2 LV.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24466290 PMCID: PMC3899307 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086916
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
MRI data.
| Total cohort (n = 172) | Patients | Patients | |
| mean ±SD (range) | mean ±SD (range) | mean ±SD (range) | |
|
| 6.1±6.6 (0–32.6) | 3.5±4.0 (0–16.6) | 7.2±7.2 (0–32.6)* |
|
| 0.1±0.2 (0–1.4) | 0.07±0.1 (0–0.5) | 0.13±0.2 (0–0.8) |
|
| |||
| Total brain volume [cm3] | 1071±114 (857–1342) | ||
| Total cerebellar volume [cm3] | 137±14 (102–170) | ||
| cerebellar GM volume [cm3] | 113±11 (94–147) | ||
| cerebellar WM volume [cm3] | 25±5 (14–40) | ||
|
| |||
| Total brain volume [cm3] | 1428±98 (1136–1780) | 1495±94 (1306–1780) | 1400±85 (1136–1603)*** |
| Total cerebellar volume [cm3] | 183±18 (137–233) | 191±17 (148–226) | 180±17 (137–233)* |
| cerebellar GM volume [cm3] | 151±15 (115–194) | 155±14 (125–186) | 148±15 (115–194) |
| cerebellar WM volume [cm3] | 33±6 (20–47) | 36±5 (24–47) | 31±5 (20–45)*** |
Patients were considered to have cerebellar signs when the EDSS cerebellar functional systems score was >0. Between group differences: *p≤0.05; ***p≤0.001.
Abbreviations: T2 LV = T2 lesion volume; T1 LV = T1 lesion volume; GM = grey matter; WM = white matter.
Figure 1Between group differences.
Box and whisker-plots of between-group differences of patients without (cFSS = 0; left column) and with cerebellar dysfunction (cFSS >0; right column). Plots are arranged as follows (from left to right): I) nTCV, II) NBV and III) whole brain T2 lesion volume (all volumes are shown in cm3). The boxplots display the median (bold line), the minimum (lower T-line) and maximum (upper T-line) as well as the first quartile (lower part of the box) and third quartile (upper part of the box) of shown volumes.
Figure 2Relation between cerebellar volume and SDMT performance.
Scatter plot showing the correlation between normalized total cerebellar volume (nTCV in cm3) vs SDMT performance (score).
Demographic and clinical data.
| Total cohort (n = 172) | Patients | Patients | |
| mean ±SD (range) | mean ±SD (range) | mean ±SD (range) | |
| +median (range) | +median (range) | +median (range) | |
|
| 48.1±10.9 (23–70) | 41.5±10.1 (23–67) | 51±9.9 (29–70)*** |
|
| 112∶ 60 | 40∶12 | 72∶ 48* |
|
| 16.2±9.5 | 11.7±6.2 | 18.2±10*** |
|
| |||
| CIS (n) | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| RRMS (n) | 122 | 50 | 72 |
| SPMS (n) | 35 | 0 | 35 |
| PPMS (n) | 11 | 0 | 11 |
|
| 3.0 (0–7.5) | 1.5 (0–7.5) | 4.0 (1–7.5)*** |
|
| 2.0 (0–4) | 0 | 2.0 (1–4) |
|
| 2.0 (0–4) | 1.0 (1–4) | 2.0 (1–4) |
|
| 23±19.7 (15–66) | 18±2.2 (15–25) | 25±10.7 (15–66)*** |
|
| −1.11±1.9 (−3.65 – 4.) | −0.41±1.28 (−2.9–4) | −1.42±1.01 (−3.65–1.25)*** |
| % of impaired patients | 30 | 10 | 42 |
|
| −0.68±1.04 (−3.91 – 1.58) | −0.2±0.79 (−2.02–1.08) | −0.91±1.01 (−3.91–1.58)** |
| % of impaired patients | 18 | 6 | 24 |
|
| 54±21 (20–99) | 40±18 (20 – 87) | 60±19 (20–90)*** |
| % of pat. with mild fatigue (≥43) | 13 | 10 | 14 |
| % of pat. with moderate fatigue (≥53) | 17 | 11 | 18 |
| % of pat. with severe fatigue (≥63) | 37 | 15 | 47 |
defined as performance falling below a critical z-score of 1.65.
Patients were considered to have cerebellar signs when the EDSS cerebellar functional systems score was >0.
Between group differences: *p≤0.05; **p≤0.01; ***p≤0.001.
Abbreviations: CIS = Clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of MS; RRMS = relapsing remitting MS; SPMS = secondary progressive MS; PPMS = primary progressive MS; EDSS = Expanded disability status scale; FSS = functional system score (EDSS subscore); 9-HPT = nine hole peg test; SDMT = symbol digit modalities test; PASAT = Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; FSMC = Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions.