Diagnostic Performance of Glymphatic System Evaluation Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus and Mimickers.
Journal
Current gerontology and geriatrics research
ISSN: 1687-7063
Titre abrégé: Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101484307
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
20
12
2018
revised:
22
05
2019
accepted:
04
06
2019
entrez:
20
7
2019
pubmed:
20
7
2019
medline:
20
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate the pathological change of the glymphatic system in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) analysis. 24 right-handed patients were referred to our hydrocephalus clinic for assessment of ventriculomegaly and gait impairment. 12 of 24 were diagnosed as pseudo-iNPH (piNPH) based on assessment by a neurologist. Diffusivity maps in the direction of the x-axis (right-to-left) (Dx), y-axis (anterior-to-posterior) (Dy), and z-axis (inferior-to-superior) (Dz) were computed. The diffusion map was coregistered to International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM) DTI-81 atlas. The analysis along the perivascular space (ALPS) index was defined as mean (Dxpro, Dypro)/mean (Dypro, Dzasc), where Dxpro and Dxasc are Dx values in the projection and association fiber areas, respectively. Evans index and callosal angle were also assessed on each case. ALPS indexes of the control, piNPH, and iNPH cases were 1.18 ± 0.08, 1.08 ± 0.03, and 0.94 ± 0.06, respectively, and there were significant differences among the groups (control vs. piNPH, P = 0.003; control vs. iNPH P < 0.001; piNPH vs. iNPH, P < 0.001). Area under curve (AUC) was 0.92, 1.00, and 1.00 on control vs. piNPH, control vs. iNPH, and piNPH vs. iNPH on ROC analysis. Between piNPH and NPH, ALPS index has higher diagnostic performance than Evans index and callosal angle (AUC = 1.00 vs. 0.84, P = 0.028; AUC = 1.00 vs. 0.74, P = 0.016). Atlas-based ALPS index using the DTI method differentiated among iNPH, piNPH, and controls clearly.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31320896
doi: 10.1155/2019/5675014
pmc: PMC6609364
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5675014Références
N Engl J Med. 1965 Jul 15;273:117-26
pubmed: 14303656
Neurosurg Rev. 2004 Jul;27(3):145-65; discussion 166-7
pubmed: 15164255
Cerebrospinal Fluid Res. 2004 Dec 10;1(1):2
pubmed: 15679948
Neurosurgery. 2005 Sep;57(3 Suppl):S4-16; discussion ii-v
pubmed: 16160425
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;24(2-3):202-9
pubmed: 17596689
Neurosurgery. 2010 Jan;66(1):80-91
pubmed: 20023540
Neuroimage. 2011 Jul 1;57(1):130-139
pubmed: 21511044
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Jan;33(1):97-103
pubmed: 22016412
Sci Transl Med. 2012 Aug 15;4(147):147ra111
pubmed: 22896675
J Neurosci. 2013 Nov 13;33(46):18190-9
pubmed: 24227727
Fluids Barriers CNS. 2014 Jun 06;11:12
pubmed: 24932405
J Neurol. 2014 Oct;261(10):1994-2002
pubmed: 25082631
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016 Jan;140:52-9
pubmed: 26646649
Neurology. 2016 Feb 16;86(7):592-9
pubmed: 26773072
Jpn J Radiol. 2017 Apr;35(4):172-178
pubmed: 28197821
Acta Neurol Scand. 2017 Nov;136(5):434-439
pubmed: 28247411
Radiology. 2017 Oct;285(1):197-205
pubmed: 28498794
Brain. 2017 Oct 1;140(10):2691-2705
pubmed: 28969373