| Literature DB >> 26618360 |
Min Soo Byun1, Song E Kim1, Jinsick Park2, Dahyun Yi1, Young Min Choe3, Bo Kyung Sohn4, Hyo Jung Choi1, Hyewon Baek1, Ji Young Han1, Jong Inn Woo5, Dong Young Lee1.
Abstract
We aimed to identify and characterize subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) exhibiting different patterns of regional brain atrophy on MRI using age- and gender-specific norms of regional brain volumes. AD subjects included in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study were classified into subtypes based on standardized values (Z-scores) of hippocampal and regional cortical volumes on MRI with reference to age- and gender-specific norms obtained from 222 cognitively normal (CN) subjects. Baseline and longitudinal changes of clinical characteristics over 2 years were compared across subtypes. Whole-brain-level gray matter (GM) atrophy pattern using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of the subtypes were also investigated. Of 163 AD subjects, 58.9% were classified as the "both impaired" subtype with the typical hippocampal and cortical atrophy pattern, whereas 41.1% were classified as the subtypes with atypical atrophy patterns: "hippocampal atrophy only" (19.0%), "cortical atrophy only" (11.7%), and "both spared" (10.4%). Voxel-based morphometric analysis demonstrated whole-brain-level differences in overall GM atrophy across the subtypes. These subtypes showed different progression rates over 2 years; and all subtypes had significantly lower CSF amyloid-β 1-42 levels compared to CN. In conclusion, we identified four AD subtypes exhibiting heterogeneous atrophy patterns on MRI with different progression rates after controlling the effects of aging and gender on atrophy with normative information. CSF biomarker analysis suggests the presence of Aβ neuropathology irrespective of subtypes. Such heterogeneity of MRI-based neuronal injury biomarker and related heterogeneous progression patterns should be considered in clinical trials and practice with AD patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26618360 PMCID: PMC4664412 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142756
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Classification algorithm based on regional atrophy patterns and definition of subtypes.
| Subtypes | Hippocampal ROI Z-score (ZH) | Cortical ROIs Z-scores (ZF, ZT, ZP) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ZH < -1.0 | at least 1 of 3 cortical ROIs Z-scores < -1.0 |
|
| ZH < -1.0 | all cortical ROIs Z-scores ≥ -1.0 |
|
| ZH ≥ -1.0 | at least 1 of 3 cortical ROIs Z-scores < -1.0 |
|
| ZH ≥ -1.0 | all cortical ROIs Z-scores ≥ -1.0 |
ROI, Region-of-interest; ZH, Z-score of hippocampal ROI volume; ZF, Z-score of frontal ROI volume; ZT, Z-score of temporal ROI volume; ZP, Z-score of parietal ROI volume.
Mean normalized ROI volumes and Z-scores of AD subtypes.
| BI (n = 96: 58.9%) | HA (n = 31: 19.0%) | CA (n = 19: 11.7%) | BS (n = 17: 10.4%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Hippocampal ROI | 0.0033 (0.0004) | 0.0034 (0.0004) | 0.0046 (0.0007) | 0.0045 (0.0006) |
| Frontal ROI | 0.0217 (0.0022) | 0.0240(0.0014) | 0.0211 (0.0025) | 0.0243 (0.0021) |
| Temporal ROI | 0.0112 (0.0012) | 0.0128 (0.0008) | 0.0117 (0.0013) | 0.0130 (0.0013) |
| Parietal ROI | 0.0127 (0.0015) | 0.0150 (0.0010) | 0.0122 (0.0022) | 0.0154 (0.0016) |
|
| ||||
| Hippocampal ROI | -2.20 (0.73) | -2.13 (0.76) | -0.20 (1.06) | -0.15 (0.69) |
| Frontal ROI | -1.05 (1.02) | -0.04 (0.61) | -1.40 (1.16) | 0.24 (0.91) |
| Temporal ROI | -1.38 (0.90) | -0.22 (0.57) | -1.06 (1.00) | 0.14 (0.86) |
| Parietal ROI | -1.52 (0.96) | -0.21 (0.64) | -1.92 (1.39) | 0.23 (0.92) |
Data are presented as mean (SD). ROI, Region-of-interest; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; BI, Both impaired; HA, Hippocampal atrophy only; CA, Cortical atrophy only; BS, Both spared.
Baseline demographic, clinical characteristics and neuropsychological measures of subjects.
| CN (n = 222) | AD (n = 163) |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI (n = 96) | HA (n = 31) | CA (n = 19) | BS (n = 17) | AD subtypes | ||
|
| ||||||
| Age | 75.8 (5.0) | 75.7 (7.4) | 74.6 (7.1) | 72.0 (8.9) | 78.6 (7.2) | 0.062 |
| Female | 107 (48%) | 41 (43%) | 21 (68%) | 10 (53%) | 7 (41%) | 0.095 |
| Education (years) | 16.1 (2.8) | 15.0 (2.9) | 13.5 (2.8) | 16.1 (3.2) | 14.0 (2.9) | 0.010 |
| ApoE ε4 carriers | 60 (27%) | 67 (70%) | 21 (68%) | 8 (42%) | 9 (53%) | 0.091 |
|
| ||||||
| Age at onset | 72.3 (8.0) | 71.1 (6.9) | 69.6 (9.5) | 75.8 (8.1) | 0.129 | |
| Age at onset < 65years | 16 (17.4%) | 5 (17.4%) | 5 (26.3%) | 1 (6.3%) | 0.476 | |
| Disease duration (years) | 3.39 (2.32) | 3.46 (2.87) | 2.38 (1.79) | 2.56 (1.89) | 0.219 | |
| CDR domain | ||||||
| Memory | 0 (0) | 1.03 (0.34) | 1.05 (0.35) | 0.89 (0.46) | 0.82 (0.25) | 0.069 |
| Orientation | 0 (0) | 0.85 (0.33) | 0.89 (0.38) | 0.61 (0.49) | 0.62 (0.33) | 0.004 |
| Judgment | 0.03 (0.12) | 0.81 (0.36) | 0.71 (0.25) | 0.84 (0.37) | 0.62 (0.33) | 0.098 |
| Community affairs | 0 (0.03) | 0.73 (0.41) | 0.77 (0.48) | 0.58 (0.34) | 0.56 (0.53) | 0.189 |
| Home and hobbies | 0 (0) | 0.80 (0.46) | 0.82 (0.57) | 0.71 (0.45) | 0.59 (0.57) | 0.358 |
| Personal care | 0 (0) | 0.22 (0.44) | 0.23 (0.43) | 0.05 (0.23) | 0.06 (0.24) | 0.197 |
| Global CDR | 0 (0) | 0.77 (0.25) | 0.76 (0.25) | 0.63 (0.23) | 0.65 (0.23) | 0.056 |
| CDR-SB | 0.03 (0.12) | 4.44 (1.52) | 4.47 (1.75) | 3.68 (1.74) | 3.26 (1.63) | 0.016 |
| GDS | 0.85 (1.15) | 1.68 (1.46) | 1.61 (1.50) | 1.84 (1.61) | 1.24 (0.83) | 0.616 |
| NPI-Q | 0.36 (0.93) | 3.60 (3.36) | 3.55 (2.77) | 3.00 (3.84) | 3.65 (4.42) | 0.915 |
|
| ||||||
| MMSE | 29.11 (1.00) | 23.07 (2.08) | 23.42 (1.98) | 23.58 (1.57) | 24.41 (2.48) | 0.049 |
| ADNI-Mem | 0.97 (0.53) | -0.91 (0.51) | -0.74 (0.46) | -0.64 (0.58) | -0.45 (0.45) | 0.001 |
| ADNI-EF | 0.70 (0.67) | -0.98 (0.75) | -0.50 (0.85) | -1.31 (1.01) | -0.53 (0.87) | 0.001 |
Data are shown as mean (SD) or n (%). CN, Cognitively normal; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; BI, Both impaired; HA, Hippocampal atrophy only; CA, Cortical atrophy only; BS, Both spared; CDR, Clinical dementia rating scale; CDR-SB, CDR-Sum of box; GDS, Geriatric depression scale; NPI-Q, Neuropsychiatric inventory questionnaire; MMSE, Mini-mental state examination; ADNI-Mem, composite score of memory function; ADNI-EF, composite score of executive function.
a Analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and chi-square tests to test group differences among AD subtypes were performed.
b The CA subtype had higher educational level than HA subtype in post-hoc test (p = 0.015).
c Data for five AD subjects were not available (n = 92 for the BI, n = 16 for the BS).
d The CA subtype showed lower CDR orientation domain score compared to the BI and HA subtypes (p = 0.041; p = 0.049, respectively).
e The BS subtype had significantly lower CDR-SB compared to the BI subtype (p = 0.036).
f All AD subtypes showed significantly lower MMSE, ADNI-Mem, and ADNI-EF score compared to CN (p < 0.001).
g Significant difference in MMSE and ADNI-Mem score was observed between the BI and the BS subtypes (p = 0.041; p = 0.002, respectively).
h The CA subtype had significantly greater impairments in ADNI-EF score than the BS (p = 0.015) and the HA subtypes (p = 0.002). Compared to the BI subtype, the HA subtype showed less impairment in ADNI-EF score (p = 0.014).
Fig 1Overall regional brain atrophy pattern of AD subtypes in voxel-based morphometry.
Voxel-wise whole-brain comparison of regional GM volume after correction for multiple comparisons using family-wise error correction at p < 0.05 (k = 100). (A) to (D) show the regional patterns of GM volume loss in each AD subtype compared with CN. (A) CN vs. BI, (B) CN vs. HA, (C) CN vs. CA and (D) CN vs. BS. GM, Gray matter; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; CN, Cognitively normal; BI, Both impaired; HA, Hippocampal atrophy only; CA, Cortical atrophy only; BS, Both spared.
Fig 2Longitudinal changes of cognitive function over 2 years across AD subtypes.
Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up data on (A) MMSE indicating global cognition, (B) ADNI-Mem indicating memory function and (C) ADNI-EF indicating executive function are plotted, with means and standard errors. AD, Alzheimer’s disease; BI, Both impaired; HA, Hippocampal atrophy only; CA, Cortical atrophy only; BS, Both spared; MMSE; Mini-mental state examination; ADNI-Mem, composite score of memory function; ADNI-EF, composite score of executive function.
Fig 3CSF biomarker levels.
The dot plots of CSF biomarkers in CN and AD subtypes. Bars indicates median and IQR. (A) CSF Aβ1–42, (B) CSF t-tau, (C) CSF p-tau, (D) t-tau/Aβ1–42 ratio, (E) p-tau/Aβ1–42 ratio. CN, Cognitively normal; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; BI, Both impaired; HA, Hippocampal atrophy only; CA, Cortical atrophy only; BS, Both spared; CSF, Cerebrospinal fluid; Aβ1–42 = Amyloid-β 1–42 peptide; t-tau, total tau; p-tau, phosphorylated tau.
CSF biomarkers of subjects in CN and AD subtypes.
| CN (n = 112) | AD (n = 87) |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI (n = 48: 55%) | HA (n = 18: 21%) | CA (n = 14: 16%) | BS (n = 7: 8%) | AD subtypes | ||
|
| 216 (158–253) | 131 (116–153) | 138 (127–166) | 151 (138–178) | 135 (122–212) | 0.094 |
|
| 61 (47–85) | 129 (72–160) | 120 (94–152) | 114 (78–189) | 58 (47–109) | 0.202 |
|
| 20 (16–30) | 39 (31–57) | 39 (31–56) | 34 (26–55) | 24 (14–38) | 0.116 |
|
| 0.31 (0.21–0.45) | 0.96 (0.54–1.37) | 0.92 (0.61–1.31) | 0.75 (0.50–1.27) | 0.48 (0.27–0.81) | 0.245 |
|
| 0.10 (0.07–0.16) | 0.32 (0.20–0.43) | 0.27 (0.22–0.49) | 0.24 (0.17–0.40) | 0.18 (0.11–0.29) | 0.109 |
Data are shown as median (IQR). CN, Cognitively normal; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; BI, Both impaired; HA, Hippocampal atrophy only; CA, Cortical atrophy only; BS, Both spared; CSF, Cerebrospinal fluid; Aβ1–42, Amyloid-β 1–42 peptide; t-tau, total tau; p-tau, phosphorylated tau.
a Kruskal-Wallis test to test group differences among AD subtypes were performed.
b All CSF biomarkers showed significant group differences across 5 groups including CN and 4 AD subtypes (Kruskal-Wallis test, p < 0.001).
c Compared to CN, all AD subtypes showed significantly lower CSF Aβ1–42 level (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.001 for the BI and HA; p = 0.007 and p = 0.016 for the CA and BS, respectively).
d The BI, HA and CA subtype showed significantly high CSF t-tau level compared to CN (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.001).
e Data for t-tau and t-tau/Aβ1–42 ratio were not available for two subjects in the BI subtype.
f Compared to CN, the BI, HA and CA subtypes showed significantly high CSF p-tau level (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.001 for the BI and HA; p = 0.001 for CA).
g Compared to CN, the BI, HA and CA subtypes showed significantly high t-tau/Aβ1–42 and p-tau/Aβ1–42 ratio (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.001).