Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Different clinically feasible methods for evaluation of medial temporal lobe atrophy exists and are useful in diagnostic work-up of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic properties of two clinically available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based methods—an automated volumetric software, NeuroQuant® (NQ) (evaluation of hippocampus volume) and the Scheltens scale (visual evaluation of medial temporal lobe atrophy [MTA])—in patients with AD dementia, and subjective and mild cognitive impairment (non-dementia).

Material and Methods

MRIs from 56 patients (31 AD, 25 non-dementia) were assessed with both methods. Correlations between the methods were calculated and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses that yield area under the curve (AUC) statistics were conducted.

Results

High correlations were found between the two MRI assessments for the total hippocampal volume measured with NQ and mean MTA score (–0.753, P < 0.001), for the right (–0.767, P < 0.001), and for the left (–0.675, P < 0.001) sides. The NQ total measure yielded somewhat higher AUC (0.88, “good”) compared to the MTA mean measure (0.80, “good”) in the comparison of patients with AD and non-dementia, but the accuracy was in favor of the MTA scale.

Conclusion

The two methods correlated highly and both methods reached equally “good” power.

Keywords

Dementia subjective cognitive impairment mild cognitive impairment Alzheimer’s disease NeuroQuant Scheltens scale

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Braekhus

Ulstein

Wyller

et al.

The Memory Clinic–outpatient assessment when dementia is suspected. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2011; 131: 2254–2257.

Brewer

Magda

Airriess

et al.

Fully-automated quantification of regional brain volumes for improved detection of focal atrophy in Alzheimer disease. Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 578–580.

Scheltens

Leys

Barkhof

et al.

Atrophy of medial temporal lobes on MRI in “probable” Alzheimer's disease and normal ageing: diagnostic value and neuropsychological correlates. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992; 55: 967–972.

Ahdidan

Raji

DeYoe

et al.

Quantitative neuroimaging software for clinical assessment of hippocampal volumes on MR imaging. J Alzheimers Dis 2016; 49: 723–732.

Lotjonen

Wolz

Koikkalainen

et al.

Fast and robust multi-atlas segmentation of brain magnetic resonance images. Neuroimage 2010; 49: 2352–2365.

Persson

Selbaek

Braekhus

et al.

Fully automated structural MRI of the brain in clinical dementia workup. Acta Radiol 2017; 58: 740–747.

Persson

Barca

Eldholm

et al.

Visual evaluation of medial temporal lobe atrophy as a clinical marker of conversion from mild cognitive impairment to dementia and for predicting progression in patients with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2017; 44: 12–24.

Winblad

Palmer

Kivipelto

et al.

Mild cognitive impairment–beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med 2004; 256: 240–246.

World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research, Geneva: WHO, 1993.

10.

Cavallin

Loken

Engedal

et al.

Overtime reliability of medial temporal lobe atrophy rating in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 318–323.

11.

Ferreira

Cavallin

Larsson

et al.

Practical cut-offs for visual rating scales of medial temporal, frontal and posterior atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. J Intern Med 2015; 278: 277–290.

12.

Westman

Cavallin

Muehlboeck

et al.

Sensitivity and specificity of medial temporal lobe visual ratings and multivariate regional MRI classification in Alzheimer’s disease. PLoS One 2011; 6: e22506–e22506.

13.

Obuchowski

. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003; 229: 3–8.

14.

Ludemann

Grieger

Wurm

et al.

Glioma assessment using quantitative blood volume maps generated by T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a receiver operating characteristic study. Acta Radiol 2006; 47: 303–310.

15.

Azab

Carone

Ying

et al.

Mesial temporal sclerosis: accuracy of NeuroQuant versus neuroradiologist. Am J Neuroradiol 2015; 36: 1400–1406.

16.

Bresciani

Rossi

Testa

et al.

Visual assessment of medial temporal atrophy on MR films in Alzheimer’s disease: comparison with volumetry. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005; 17: 8–13.

17.

Cavallin

Bronge

Zhang

et al.

Comparison between visual assessment of MTA and hippocampal volumes in an elderly, non-demented population. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 573–579.

18.

Claus

Staekenborg

Holl

et al.

Practical use of visual medial temporal lobe atrophy cut-off scores in Alzheimer’s disease: Validation in a large memory clinic population. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 3147–3155.

19.

Tanpitukpongse

Mazurowski

Ikhena

et al.

Predictive utility of marketed volumetric software tools in subjects at risk for Alzheimer disease: do regions outside the hippocampus matter?

Am J Neuroradiol 2017; 38: 546–552.

20.

Engedal

Braekhus

Andreassen

et al.

Diagnosis of dementia–automatic quantification of brain structures. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2012; 132: 1747–1751.

Comparison of automated volumetry of the hippocampus using NeuroQuant® and visual assessment of the medial temporal lobe in Alzheimer’s disease

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References