Literature DB >> 33888457

Variability of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Imaging Biomarkers with Respect to Section Plane Angulation: How Wrong a Radiologist Can Be?

P Ryska1, O Slezak1,2, A Eklund3, J Salzer4, J Malm4, J Zizka5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Systematic analysis of angulation-related variability of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus imaging biomarkers has not been published yet. Our aim was to evaluate the variability of these radiologic biomarkers with respect to imaging plane angulation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty subjects (35 with clinically confirmed idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and 45 age- and sex-matched healthy controls) were prospectively enrolled in a 3T brain MR imaging study. Two independent readers assessed 12 radiologic idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus biomarkers on sections aligned parallel or perpendicular to the bicallosal, bicommissural, hypophysis-fastigium, and brain stem vertical lines, respectively.
RESULTS: Disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus, simplified callosal angle, frontal horn diameter, z-Evans Index, and cella media vertical width did not show significant systematic differences in any of 6 section plane combinations studied. The remaining 7 biomarkers (including the Evans Index and callosal angle) showed significant differences in up to 4 of 6 mutually compared section plane combinations. The values obtained from sections aligned with the brain stem vertical line (parallel to the posterior brain stem margin) showed the most deviating results from other section angulations.
CONCLUSIONS: Seven of 12 idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus biomarkers including the frequently used Evans Index and callosal angle showed statistically significant deviations when measured on sections whose angulations differed or did not comply with the proper section definition published in the original literature. Strict adherence to the methodology of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus biomarker assessment is, therefore, essential to avoid an incorrect diagnosis. Increased radiologic and clinical attention should be paid to the biomarkers showing low angulation-related variability yet high specificity for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus-related morphologic changes such as the z-Evans Index, frontal horn diameter, or disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus.
© 2021 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33888457      PMCID: PMC8324271          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   4.966


  22 in total

1.  Brain ventricular size in healthy elderly: comparison between Evans index and volume measurement.

Authors:  Khalid Ambarki; Hanna Israelsson; Anders Wåhlin; Richard Birgander; Anders Eklund; Jan Malm
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.654

2.  A Simplified Callosal Angle Measure Best Differentiates Idiopathic-Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus from Neurodegenerative Dementia.

Authors:  Annachiara Cagnin; Mariachiara Simioni; Matteo Tagliapietra; Valentina Citton; Sara Pompanin; Alessandro Della Puppa; Mario Ermani; Renzo Manara
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 4.472

Review 3.  Diagnosing idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus.

Authors:  Norman Relkin; Anthony Marmarou; Petra Klinge; Marvin Bergsneider; Peter McL Black
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.654

4.  Prevalence of probable idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus in a Norwegian population.

Authors:  A Brean; P K Eide
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 3.209

5.  Comparison of CSF Distribution between Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus and Alzheimer Disease.

Authors:  S Yamada; M Ishikawa; K Yamamoto
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Feasibility of radiological markers in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Authors:  Maria Kojoukhova; Anne M Koivisto; Riika Korhonen; Anne M Remes; Ritva Vanninen; Hilkka Soininen; Juha E Jääskeläinen; Anna Sutela; Ville Leinonen
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 2.216

7.  Radiological markers of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: Relative comparison of their diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Pavel Ryska; Ondrej Slezak; Anders Eklund; Jan Malm; Jonatan Salzer; Jan Zizka
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 3.181

8.  Absence of Disproportionately Enlarged Subarachnoid Space Hydrocephalus, a Sharp Callosal Angle, or Other Morphologic MRI Markers Should Not Be Used to Exclude Patients with Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus from Shunt Surgery.

Authors:  S Agerskov; M Wallin; P Hellström; D Ziegelitz; C Wikkelsö; M Tullberg
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 9.  CSF Flow in the Brain in the Context of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus.

Authors:  W G Bradley
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  Simple and reproducible linear measurements to determine ventricular enlargement in adults.

Authors:  Kevin Reinard; Azam Basheer; Scott Phillips; Allison Snyder; Ajay Agarwal; Kourosh Jafari-Khouzani; Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh; Lonni Schultz; Todd Aho; Jason M Schwalb
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-04-09
View more
  2 in total

1.  Value of MRI-based semi-quantitative structural neuroimaging in predicting the prognosis of patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus after shunt surgery.

Authors:  Jiakuan Chen; Wenjie He; Xiejun Zhang; Minrui Lv; Xi Zhou; Xiaolin Yang; Haihua Wei; Haiqin Ma; Hongbing Li; Jun Xia
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Application of Evans Index in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Patients: A Mini Review.

Authors:  Xi Zhou; Jun Xia
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 5.750

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.