Christine Ghadery1,2,3, Antonio P Strafella4,5,6. 1. Morton and Gloria Shulman Movement Disorder Unit & E.J. Safra Parkinson Disease Program, Neurology Division, Department of Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, UHN, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Division of Brain, Imaging and Behaviour - Systems Neuroscience, Krembil Research Institute, UHN, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Research Imaging Centre, Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Morton and Gloria Shulman Movement Disorder Unit & E.J. Safra Parkinson Disease Program, Neurology Division, Department of Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, UHN, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. antonio.strafella@uhn.ca. 5. Division of Brain, Imaging and Behaviour - Systems Neuroscience, Krembil Research Institute, UHN, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. antonio.strafella@uhn.ca. 6. Research Imaging Centre, Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. antonio.strafella@uhn.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: For decades, identifying in vivo imaging biomarkers to accurately differentiate between various movement disorders as well as to understand their underlying pathophysiological abnormalities has been the aim of scientific work. Recent advances in multimodal imaging enable the visualization of structural and functional brain changes in these pathological conditions, thus raising the value of imaging techniques as powerful tools to improve sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnoses. This article reviews well-established and recent developments in imaging markers for movement disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Whereas several imaging approaches seem to be promising, many modalities are still under development and may not provide decisive answers. Thus, the use of combined imaging modalities as well as the acquisition of methodological consensus in the scientific community may provide more conclusive findings in the future of biomarkers. Although a single biomarker has yet not been identified, multiple markers derived from different imaging modalities may represent the right approach.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: For decades, identifying in vivo imaging biomarkers to accurately differentiate between various movement disorders as well as to understand their underlying pathophysiological abnormalities has been the aim of scientific work. Recent advances in multimodal imaging enable the visualization of structural and functional brain changes in these pathological conditions, thus raising the value of imaging techniques as powerful tools to improve sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnoses. This article reviews well-established and recent developments in imaging markers for movement disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Whereas several imaging approaches seem to be promising, many modalities are still under development and may not provide decisive answers. Thus, the use of combined imaging modalities as well as the acquisition of methodological consensus in the scientific community may provide more conclusive findings in the future of biomarkers. Although a single biomarker has yet not been identified, multiple markers derived from different imaging modalities may represent the right approach.
Authors: A Padovani; B Borroni; S M Brambati; C Agosti; M Broli; R Alonso; P Scifo; G Bellelli; A Alberici; R Gasparotti; D Perani Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2005-11-23 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Roberto De Marzi; Klaus Seppi; Birgit Högl; Christoph Müller; Christoph Scherfler; Ambra Stefani; Alex Iranzo; Eduardo Tolosa; Joan Santamarìa; Elke Gizewski; Michael Schocke; Elisabeth Skalla; Christian Kremser; Werner Poewe Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Stefanie Klaffke; Andrea A Kuhn; Michail Plotkin; Holger Amthauer; Daniel Harnack; Roland Felix; Andreas Kupsch Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Rainer Rupprecht; Vassilios Papadopoulos; Gerhard Rammes; Thomas C Baghai; Jinjiang Fan; Nagaraju Akula; Ghislaine Groyer; David Adams; Michael Schumacher Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Adam L Boxer; Michael D Geschwind; Nataliya Belfor; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Guido F Schauer; Bruce L Miller; Michael W Weiner; Howard J Rosen Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2006-01
Authors: Raúl de la Fuente-Fernández; Michael Schulzer; Lisa Kuramoto; Jacquelyn Cragg; Nandhagopal Ramachandiran; Wing L Au; Edwin Mak; Jess McKenzie; Siobhan McCormick; Vesna Sossi; Thomas J Ruth; Chong S Lee; Donald B Calne; A Jon Stoessl Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Edson Bor-Seng-Shu; Jose Luiz Pedroso; Andre C Felicio; Daniel Ciampi de Andrade; Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira; Pedro Braga-Neto; Ilza Rosa Batista; Orlando Graziani Povoas Barsottini; Vanderci Borges; Henrique Ballalai Ferraz; Ming Chi Shih; Rodrigo A Bressan; Luiz Augusto Franco de Andrade; Uwe Walter Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 4.891