Ho Young Park1, Chong Hyun Suh2, Hwon Heo3, Woo Hyun Shim1, Sang Joon Kim1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. chonghyunsuh@amc.seoul.kr. 3. Department of Convergence Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of hippocampal volumetry for Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for articles that evaluated the diagnostic performance of hippocampal volumetry in differentiating AD or MCI from normal controls, published up to March 6, 2022. The quality of the articles was evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explain study heterogeneity. The diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry was also pooled. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles (5157 patients) were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for AD were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77-86%) and 87% (95% CI, 82-91%), whereas those for MCI were 60% (95% CI, 51-69%) and 75% (95% CI, 67-81%), respectively. No difference in the diagnostic performance was observed between automatic and manual segmentation (p = 0.11). MMSE scores, study design, and the reference standard being used were associated with study heterogeneity (p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a higher diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry for both AD (pooled sensitivity: 88% vs. 79%, specificity: 92% vs. 89%, p = 0.07) and MCI (pooled sensitivity: 71% vs. 55%, specificity: 83% vs. 68%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated good diagnostic performance of hippocampal volumetry for AD or MCI. Entorhinal cortex volumetry might have superior diagnostic performance to hippocampal volumetry. However, due to a small number of studies, the diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry is yet to be determined. KEY POINTS: • The pooled sensitivity and specificity of hippocampal volumetry for Alzheimer's disease were 82% and 87%, whereas those for mild cognitive impairment were 60% and 75%, respectively. • No significant difference in the diagnostic performance was observed between automatic and manual segmentation. • Subgroup analysis demonstrated superior diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry for AD (pooled sensitivity: 88%, specificity: 92%) and MCI (pooled sensitivity: 71%, specificity: 83%).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of hippocampal volumetry for Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for articles that evaluated the diagnostic performance of hippocampal volumetry in differentiating AD or MCI from normal controls, published up to March 6, 2022. The quality of the articles was evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explain study heterogeneity. The diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry was also pooled. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles (5157 patients) were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for AD were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77-86%) and 87% (95% CI, 82-91%), whereas those for MCI were 60% (95% CI, 51-69%) and 75% (95% CI, 67-81%), respectively. No difference in the diagnostic performance was observed between automatic and manual segmentation (p = 0.11). MMSE scores, study design, and the reference standard being used were associated with study heterogeneity (p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a higher diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry for both AD (pooled sensitivity: 88% vs. 79%, specificity: 92% vs. 89%, p = 0.07) and MCI (pooled sensitivity: 71% vs. 55%, specificity: 83% vs. 68%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated good diagnostic performance of hippocampal volumetry for AD or MCI. Entorhinal cortex volumetry might have superior diagnostic performance to hippocampal volumetry. However, due to a small number of studies, the diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry is yet to be determined. KEY POINTS: • The pooled sensitivity and specificity of hippocampal volumetry for Alzheimer's disease were 82% and 87%, whereas those for mild cognitive impairment were 60% and 75%, respectively. • No significant difference in the diagnostic performance was observed between automatic and manual segmentation. • Subgroup analysis demonstrated superior diagnostic performance of entorhinal cortex volumetry for AD (pooled sensitivity: 88%, specificity: 92%) and MCI (pooled sensitivity: 71%, specificity: 83%).
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Marilyn S Albert; Steven T DeKosky; Dennis Dickson; Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Nick C Fox; Anthony Gamst; David M Holtzman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Peter J Snyder; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Marina Boccardi; Rossana Ganzola; Martina Bocchetta; Michela Pievani; Alberto Redolfi; George Bartzokis; Richard Camicioli; John G Csernansky; Mony J de Leon; Leyla deToledo-Morrell; Ronald J Killiany; Stéphane Lehéricy; Johannes Pantel; Jens C Pruessner; H Soininen; Craig Watson; Simon Duchesne; Clifford R Jack; Giovanni B Frisoni Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2011 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Giovanni B Frisoni; Clifford R Jack; Martina Bocchetta; Corinna Bauer; Kristian S Frederiksen; Yawu Liu; Gregory Preboske; Tim Swihart; Melanie Blair; Enrica Cavedo; Michel J Grothe; Mariangela Lanfredi; Oliver Martinez; Masami Nishikawa; Marileen Portegies; Travis Stoub; Chadwich Ward; Liana G Apostolova; Rossana Ganzola; Dominik Wolf; Frederik Barkhof; George Bartzokis; Charles DeCarli; John G Csernansky; Leyla deToledo-Morrell; Mirjam I Geerlings; Jeffrey Kaye; Ronald J Killiany; Stephane Lehéricy; Hiroshi Matsuda; John O'Brien; Lisa C Silbert; Philip Scheltens; Hilkka Soininen; Stefan Teipel; Gunhild Waldemar; Andreas Fellgiebel; Josephine Barnes; Michael Firbank; Lotte Gerritsen; Wouter Henneman; Nikolai Malykhin; Jens C Pruessner; Lei Wang; Craig Watson; Henrike Wolf; Mony deLeon; Johannes Pantel; Clarissa Ferrari; Paolo Bosco; Patrizio Pasqualetti; Simon Duchesne; Henri Duvernoy; Marina Boccardi Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David A Bennett; Kaj Blennow; Maria C Carrillo; Billy Dunn; Samantha Budd Haeberlein; David M Holtzman; William Jagust; Frank Jessen; Jason Karlawish; Enchi Liu; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Thomas Montine; Creighton Phelps; Katherine P Rankin; Christopher C Rowe; Philip Scheltens; Eric Siemers; Heather M Snyder; Reisa Sperling Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 21.566