A A Thaker1, B D Weinberg2, W P Dillon3, C P Hess3, H J Cabral4, D A Fleischman5, S E Leurgans5, D A Bennett5, B T Hyman6, M S Albert7, R J Killiany8, B Fischl9,10, A M Dale11, R S Desikan12. 1. From the Department of Radiology (A.A.T.), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (B.D.W.), Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Neuroradiology Section (W.P.D., C.P.H., R.S.D.), Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Departments of Biostatistics (H.J.C.). 5. Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center (D.A.F., S.E.L., D.A.B.), Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Department of Neurology (B.T.H.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Neurology and Division of Cognitive Neurosciences (M.S.A.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. Anatomy and Neurobiology (R.J.K.), Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging (B.F.), Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 10. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (B.F.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 11. Departments of Radiology (A.M.D.), Cognitive Sciences and Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 12. Neuroradiology Section (W.P.D., C.P.H., R.S.D.), Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California rahul.desikan@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The entorhinal cortex, a critical gateway between the neocortex and hippocampus, is one of the earliest regions affected by Alzheimer disease-associated neurofibrillary tangle pathology. Although our prior work has automatically delineated an MR imaging-based measure of the entorhinal cortex, whether antemortem entorhinal cortex thickness is associated with postmortem tangle burden within the entorhinal cortex is still unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the relationship between antemortem MRI measures of entorhinal cortex thickness and postmortem neuropathological measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 50 participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project with antemortem structural T1-weighted MR imaging and postmortem neuropathologic assessments. Here, we focused on thickness within the entorhinal cortex as anatomically defined by our previously developed MR imaging parcellation system (Desikan-Killiany Atlas in FreeSurfer). Using linear regression, we evaluated the association between entorhinal cortex thickness and tangles and amyloid-β load within the entorhinal cortex and medial temporal and neocortical regions. RESULTS: We found a significant relationship between antemortem entorhinal cortex thickness and entorhinal cortex (P = .006) and medial temporal lobe tangles (P = .002); we found no relationship between entorhinal cortex thickness and entorhinal cortex (P = .09) and medial temporal lobe amyloid-β (P = .09). We also found a significant association between entorhinal cortex thickness and cortical tangles (P = .003) and amyloid-β (P = .01). We found no relationship between parahippocampal gyrus thickness and entorhinal cortex (P = .31) and medial temporal lobe tangles (P = .051). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that entorhinal cortex-associated in vivo cortical thinning may represent a marker of postmortem medial temporal and neocortical Alzheimer disease pathology.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The entorhinal cortex, a critical gateway between the neocortex and hippocampus, is one of the earliest regions affected by Alzheimer disease-associated neurofibrillary tangle pathology. Although our prior work has automatically delineated an MR imaging-based measure of the entorhinal cortex, whether antemortem entorhinal cortex thickness is associated with postmortem tangle burden within the entorhinal cortex is still unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the relationship between antemortem MRI measures of entorhinal cortex thickness and postmortem neuropathological measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 50 participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project with antemortem structural T1-weighted MR imaging and postmortem neuropathologic assessments. Here, we focused on thickness within the entorhinal cortex as anatomically defined by our previously developed MR imaging parcellation system (Desikan-Killiany Atlas in FreeSurfer). Using linear regression, we evaluated the association between entorhinal cortex thickness and tangles and amyloid-β load within the entorhinal cortex and medial temporal and neocortical regions. RESULTS: We found a significant relationship between antemortem entorhinal cortex thickness and entorhinal cortex (P = .006) and medial temporal lobe tangles (P = .002); we found no relationship between entorhinal cortex thickness and entorhinal cortex (P = .09) and medial temporal lobe amyloid-β (P = .09). We also found a significant association between entorhinal cortex thickness and cortical tangles (P = .003) and amyloid-β (P = .01). We found no relationship between parahippocampal gyrus thickness and entorhinal cortex (P = .31) and medial temporal lobe tangles (P = .051). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that entorhinal cortex-associated in vivo cortical thinning may represent a marker of postmortem medial temporal and neocortical Alzheimer disease pathology.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Rahul S Desikan; Linda K McEvoy; Wesley K Thompson; Dominic Holland; J Cooper Roddey; Kaj Blennow; Paul S Aisen; James B Brewer; Bradley T Hyman; Anders M Dale Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Randy L Buckner; Abraham Z Snyder; Benjamin J Shannon; Gina LaRossa; Rimmon Sachs; Anthony F Fotenos; Yvette I Sheline; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; John C Morris; Mark A Mintun Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2005-08-24 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: B C Dickerson; I Goncharova; M P Sullivan; C Forchetti; R S Wilson; D A Bennett; L A Beckett; L deToledo-Morrell Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: R S Desikan; H J Cabral; B Fischl; C R G Guttmann; D Blacker; B T Hyman; M S Albert; R J Killiany Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-12-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Matthew R Brier; Brian Gordon; Karl Friedrichsen; John McCarthy; Ari Stern; Jon Christensen; Christopher Owen; Patricia Aldea; Yi Su; Jason Hassenstab; Nigel J Cairns; David M Holtzman; Anne M Fagan; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger; Beau M Ances Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Jennifer L Whitwell; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Stephen D Weigand; Mary Machulda; Matthew L Senjem; Christopher G Schwarz; Anthony J Spychalla; David T Jones; Daniel A Drubach; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Nilüfer Ertekin-Taner; Ronald C Petersen; Val J Lowe; Clifford R Jack; Keith A Josephs Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Veronika Hanko; Alexandra C Apple; Kathryn I Alpert; Kristen N Warren; Julie A Schneider; Konstantinos Arfanakis; David A Bennett; Lei Wang Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Chin Hong Tan; Luke W Bonham; Chun Chieh Fan; Elizabeth C Mormino; Leo P Sugrue; Iris J Broce; Christopher P Hess; Jennifer S Yokoyama; Gil D Rabinovici; Bruce L Miller; Kristine Yaffe; Gerard D Schellenberg; Karolina Kauppi; Dominic Holland; Linda K McEvoy; Walter A Kukull; Duygu Tosun; Michael W Weiner; Reisa A Sperling; David A Bennett; Bradley T Hyman; Ole A Andreassen; Anders M Dale; Rahul S Desikan Journal: Brain Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman; Patricia A Boyle; Lisa L Barnes; Robert S Wilson; Julie A Schneider Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Heidi I L Jacobs; Jean C Augustinack; Aaron P Schultz; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Joseph Locascio; Rebecca E Amariglio; Kathryn V Papp; Dorene M Rentz; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Juan C Arias; Mark Edwards; Francesca Vitali; Thomas G Beach; Geidy E Serrano; Craig C Weinkauf Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Per Kristian Eide; Aslan Lashkarivand; Åsmund Aleksander Hagen-Kersten; Øivind Gjertsen; Bård Nedregaard; Ruth Sletteberg; Grethe Løvland; Svein Are Sirirud Vatnehol; Are Hugo Pripp; Lars Magnus Valnes; Geir Ringstad Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 4.086