PURPOSE: Parkinson's disease (PD) can manifest with a tremor-dominant or a non-tremor (akinetic-rigid) phenotype. Although the tremor-dominant subtype may show a better prognosis, there is limited information on the phenotypic differences regarding the level of striatal dopamine transmission. The present study investigated striatal dopamine transporter (DAT) binding characteristics in a large sample of patients with and without tremor. METHODS: [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT scans of 231 patients with a clinical diagnosis of PD and abnormal FP-CIT binding (157 with tremor, 74 without tremor) and 230 control patients with normal FP-CIT binding (148 with tremor, 82 without tremor) were analysed using an automated region-of-interest analysis of the scans (BRASS). Specific striatal binding ratios were compared between phenotypes and groups using age, sex, and symptom duration, predominant side of symptoms, dopaminergic medications and scanner as covariates. RESULTS: Patients with PD had 28.1 - 65.0 % lower binding in all striatal regions compared to controls (p < 0.001). The mean FP-CIT caudate nucleus uptake and the left caudate nucleus uptake were higher in PD patients with tremor than in PD patients without tremor (mean 9.0 % higher, left 10.5 % higher; p < 0.05), whereas there were no differences between tremor and non-tremor control patients. No significant effects of tremor on DAT binding were observed in the anterior or posterior putamen. CONCLUSION: The motor phenotype is associated with the extent of caudate dopamine terminal loss in PD, as dopamine function is relatively more preserved in tremor patients. Symptom type is related to caudate dopamine function only in association with Parkinsonian dopaminergic degeneration, not in intact dopamine systems in patients with non-PD tremor.
PURPOSE:Parkinson's disease (PD) can manifest with a tremor-dominant or a non-tremor (akinetic-rigid) phenotype. Although the tremor-dominant subtype may show a better prognosis, there is limited information on the phenotypic differences regarding the level of striatal dopamine transmission. The present study investigated striatal dopamine transporter (DAT) binding characteristics in a large sample of patients with and without tremor. METHODS: [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT scans of 231 patients with a clinical diagnosis of PD and abnormal FP-CIT binding (157 with tremor, 74 without tremor) and 230 control patients with normal FP-CIT binding (148 with tremor, 82 without tremor) were analysed using an automated region-of-interest analysis of the scans (BRASS). Specific striatal binding ratios were compared between phenotypes and groups using age, sex, and symptom duration, predominant side of symptoms, dopaminergic medications and scanner as covariates. RESULTS:Patients with PD had 28.1 - 65.0 % lower binding in all striatal regions compared to controls (p < 0.001). The mean FP-CIT caudate nucleus uptake and the left caudate nucleus uptake were higher in PDpatients with tremor than in PDpatients without tremor (mean 9.0 % higher, left 10.5 % higher; p < 0.05), whereas there were no differences between tremor and non-tremor control patients. No significant effects of tremor on DAT binding were observed in the anterior or posterior putamen. CONCLUSION: The motor phenotype is associated with the extent of caudate dopamine terminal loss in PD, as dopamine function is relatively more preserved in tremorpatients. Symptom type is related to caudate dopamine function only in association with Parkinsonian dopaminergic degeneration, not in intact dopamine systems in patients with non-PD tremor.
Authors: Alexei Korchounov; Hayo I Schipper; Irina S Preobrazhenskaya; Kirn R Kessler; Nikolay N Yakhno Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: O Schillaci; A Chiaravalloti; M Pierantozzi; B Di Pietro; G Koch; C Bruni; P Stanzione; A Stefani Journal: Int J Mol Med Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 4.101
Authors: Minyoung Oh; Jae Seung Kim; Ji Young Kim; Kwang-Ho Shin; Seol Hoon Park; Hye Ok Kim; Dae Hyuk Moon; Seung Jun Oh; Sun Ju Chung; Chong Sik Lee Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Janey Prodoehl; Peggy J Planetta; Ajay S Kurani; Cynthia L Comella; Daniel M Corcos; David E Vaillancourt Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz; David J Burn; Joseph Jankovic; Tien K Khoo; Barbara C Tilley Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Elina Mäkinen; Juho Joutsa; Jarkko Johansson; Maija Mäki; Marko Seppänen; Valtteri Kaasinen Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Elon D Wallert; Elsmarieke van de Giessen; Remco J J Knol; Martijn Beudel; Rob M A de Bie; Jan Booij Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Ismael Huertas; Silvia Jesús; José Antonio Lojo; Francisco Javier García-Gómez; María Teresa Cáceres-Redondo; Juan Manuel Oropesa-Ruiz; Fátima Carrillo; Laura Vargas-Gonzalez; Juan Francisco Martín Rodríguez; Pilar Gómez-Garre; David García-Solís; Pablo Mir Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elina Mäkinen; Juho Joutsa; Elina Jaakkola; Tommi Noponen; Jarkko Johansson; Miia Pitkonen; Reeta Levo; Tuomas Mertsalmi; Filip Scheperjans; Valtteri Kaasinen Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.849