BACKGROUND: An understanding of potential age-related changes in brain stiffness and its regional variation is important for further clinical application of MR elastography. PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of age on global and regional brain stiffness in young and middle-aged adults. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Fifty subjects with normal brains and aged in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s (five men, five women per decade). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T MRI and elastography with a vibration frequency of 60 Hz. ASSESSMENT: Stiffness was measured in nine brain regions (cerebrum, temporal lobes, sensorimotor areas, frontotemporal composite region, deep gray matter and white matter (deep GM/WM), parietal lobes, occipital lobes, frontal lobes, and cerebellum) using an atlas-based region-of-interest approach. The influence of age on regional brain stiffness was evaluated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multiple linear regression analysis, followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test, using subjects in their 20s as controls. RESULTS: Following adjustment for sex, multiple linear regression revealed a significant negative correlation between age and stiffness of the cerebrum (P < 0.0001), temporal lobes (P < 0.0001), sensorimotor areas (P < 0.0001), frontotemporal composite region (P < 0.0001), deep GM/WM (P = 0.0028), parietal lobes (P < 0.0001), occipital lobes (P = 0.0055), and frontal lobes (P < 0.0001). Dunnett's multiple comparison test showed that the stiffness of the sensorimotor areas, frontotemporal composite region, and frontal lobes was significantly decreased in subjects in their 40s (P < 0.0367), 50s (P < 0.0001), and 60s (P < 0.0001), while that of the cerebrum, temporal lobes, and parietal lobes was significantly decreased only in subjects in their 50s (P < 0.0012) and 60s (P < 0.0031) when compared with the controls. DATA CONCLUSION: There is an age-related decrease in brain stiffness that varies across the different regions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:727-733.
BACKGROUND: An understanding of potential age-related changes in brain stiffness and its regional variation is important for further clinical application of MR elastography. PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of age on global and regional brain stiffness in young and middle-aged adults. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Fifty subjects with normal brains and aged in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s (five men, five women per decade). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T MRI and elastography with a vibration frequency of 60 Hz. ASSESSMENT: Stiffness was measured in nine brain regions (cerebrum, temporal lobes, sensorimotor areas, frontotemporal composite region, deep gray matter and white matter (deep GM/WM), parietal lobes, occipital lobes, frontal lobes, and cerebellum) using an atlas-based region-of-interest approach. The influence of age on regional brain stiffness was evaluated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multiple linear regression analysis, followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test, using subjects in their 20s as controls. RESULTS: Following adjustment for sex, multiple linear regression revealed a significant negative correlation between age and stiffness of the cerebrum (P < 0.0001), temporal lobes (P < 0.0001), sensorimotor areas (P < 0.0001), frontotemporal composite region (P < 0.0001), deep GM/WM (P = 0.0028), parietal lobes (P < 0.0001), occipital lobes (P = 0.0055), and frontal lobes (P < 0.0001). Dunnett's multiple comparison test showed that the stiffness of the sensorimotor areas, frontotemporal composite region, and frontal lobes was significantly decreased in subjects in their 40s (P < 0.0367), 50s (P < 0.0001), and 60s (P < 0.0001), while that of the cerebrum, temporal lobes, and parietal lobes was significantly decreased only in subjects in their 50s (P < 0.0012) and 60s (P < 0.0031) when compared with the controls. DATA CONCLUSION: There is an age-related decrease in brain stiffness that varies across the different regions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:727-733.
Authors: S A Kruse; J A Smith; A J Lawrence; M A Dresner; A Manduca; J F Greenleaf; R L Ehman Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: T L Jernigan; S L Archibald; C Fennema-Notestine; A C Gamst; J C Stout; J Bonner; J R Hesselink Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: D D Blatter; E D Bigler; S D Gale; S C Johnson; C V Anderson; B M Burnett; N Parker; S Kurth; S D Horn Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Arvin Arani; Matthew C Murphy; Kevin J Glaser; Armando Manduca; David S Lake; Scott A Kruse; Clifford R Jack; Richard L Ehman; John Huston Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Matthew C Murphy; David T Jones; Clifford R Jack; Kevin J Glaser; Matthew L Senjem; Armando Manduca; Joel P Felmlee; Rickey E Carter; Richard L Ehman; John Huston Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana; Giuseppe Raudino; Nicola Alberio; Francesco Inserra; Giuseppe Giovinazzo; Marco Fricia; Stefano Chiriatti; Giovanni Federico Nicoletti; Salvatore Cicero; Gianluca Scalia Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2020-08-01
Authors: Peyton L Delgorio; Lucy V Hiscox; Ana M Daugherty; Faria Sanjana; Ryan T Pohlig; James M Ellison; Christopher R Martens; Hillary Schwarb; Matthew D J McGarry; Curtis L Johnson Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: T Takamura; U Motosugi; M Ogiwara; Y Sasaki; K J Glaser; R L Ehman; H Kinouchi; H Onishi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.966