Sensitivity of Volumetric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy to Progression of Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1.
biomarker
effect size
magnetic resonance spectroscopy
volumetry
Journal
Movement disorders clinical practice
ISSN: 2330-1619
Titre abrégé: Mov Disord Clin Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101630279
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
29
04
2019
accepted:
29
05
2019
entrez:
21
9
2019
pubmed:
21
9
2019
medline:
21
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Spinocerebellar ataxia type 1 (SCA1) causes progressive degeneration of the cerebellum and brainstem. Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was shown to be more sensitive to disease progression than the most sensitive clinical measure, the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), in longitudinal studies, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) was shown to detect neurochemical abnormalities with high sensitivity cross-sectionally in SCA1. The objectives of this study were to compare the sensitivities to change of volumetric MRI, MRS, and SARA in a 3-year longitudinal study in SCA1. A total of 16 early-to-moderate stage patients with SCA1 (SARA 0-14) and 21 matched healthy participants were scanned up to 3 times with 1.5-year intervals. Ataxia severity was assessed with SARA. T The pontine total Both MRI and MRS were more sensitive to disease progression than SARA in SCA1. Pontine volume was most sensitive to change, whereas MRS may have more sensitivity at the premanifest stage and predictive value for disease progression.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Spinocerebellar ataxia type 1 (SCA1) causes progressive degeneration of the cerebellum and brainstem. Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was shown to be more sensitive to disease progression than the most sensitive clinical measure, the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), in longitudinal studies, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) was shown to detect neurochemical abnormalities with high sensitivity cross-sectionally in SCA1.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study were to compare the sensitivities to change of volumetric MRI, MRS, and SARA in a 3-year longitudinal study in SCA1.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 16 early-to-moderate stage patients with SCA1 (SARA 0-14) and 21 matched healthy participants were scanned up to 3 times with 1.5-year intervals. Ataxia severity was assessed with SARA. T
RESULTS
RESULTS
The pontine total
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both MRI and MRS were more sensitive to disease progression than SARA in SCA1. Pontine volume was most sensitive to change, whereas MRS may have more sensitivity at the premanifest stage and predictive value for disease progression.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31538089
doi: 10.1002/mdc3.12804
pii: MDC312804
pmc: PMC6749810
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
549-558Subventions
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : P41 EB015894
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS080816
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000114
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : P30 NS076408
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U01 NS104326
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS070815
Pays : United States
Références
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Apr;41(4):649-56
pubmed: 10332839
Magn Reson Med. 2000 Feb;43(2):319-23
pubmed: 10680699
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Nov;16(5):532-7
pubmed: 12412029
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(5):437-59
pubmed: 12739983
Science. 2003 Oct 31;302(5646):830-4
pubmed: 14593169
Lancet Neurol. 2004 May;3(5):291-304
pubmed: 15099544
Brain. 2004 Aug;127(Pt 8):1785-95
pubmed: 15240431
Exp Neurol. 2004 Aug;188(2):491-4
pubmed: 15246848
Neuroimage. 2004;23 Suppl 1:S69-84
pubmed: 15501102
Neurology. 2006 Jun 13;66(11):1717-20
pubmed: 16769946
Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 1;49(1):158-68
pubmed: 19631275
Radiology. 2010 Mar;254(3):942-8
pubmed: 20177104
J Neurosci. 2010 Mar 10;30(10):3831-8
pubmed: 20220018
Mov Disord. 2010 Jul 15;25(9):1253-61
pubmed: 20310029
Cerebellum. 2011 Jun;10(2):208-17
pubmed: 20838948
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Apr;65(4):901-10
pubmed: 21413056
Cerebellum. 2012 Mar;11(1):155-66
pubmed: 21701895
Neurology. 2011 Sep 13;77(11):1035-41
pubmed: 21832228
Exp Neurol. 2011 Dec;232(2):290-8
pubmed: 21963649
Brain. 2013 Mar;136(Pt 3):905-17
pubmed: 23423669
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Jul;12(7):650-8
pubmed: 23707147
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013 Nov 13;8:177
pubmed: 24225362
J Med Genet. 2014 Jul;51(7):479-86
pubmed: 24780882
Magn Reson Med. 2015 May;73(5):1718-25
pubmed: 24948590
Neurobiol Dis. 2015 Feb;74:158-66
pubmed: 25446943
Mov Disord. 2015 Apr 15;30(5):662-70
pubmed: 25773989
Neuroimage. 2015 Jun;113:184-95
pubmed: 25776214
Neurology. 2015 Jul 7;85(1):96-103
pubmed: 26062625
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Nov;14(11):1101-8
pubmed: 26377379
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Oct;76(4):1083-91
pubmed: 26502373
Bioessays. 2016 Oct;38(10):977-80
pubmed: 27479863
Neuroimage. 2018 Apr 15;170:210-221
pubmed: 28188918
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Mar;79(3):1241-1250
pubmed: 28618085
Ann Neurol. 2018 Apr;83(4):816-829
pubmed: 29575033
Neuroimage Clin. 2018 Jun 14;19:858-867
pubmed: 29922574
Nat Rev Neurol. 2018 Oct;14(10):590-605
pubmed: 30131520
JCI Insight. 2018 Nov 2;3(21):
pubmed: 30385727
Magn Reson Med. 1993 Dec;30(6):672-9
pubmed: 8139448
Ann Neurol. 1996 Jan;39(1):71-8
pubmed: 8572670
Prog Brain Res. 1997;114:569-76
pubmed: 9193167
Ann Neurol. 1998 Feb;43(2):244-52
pubmed: 9485066
Brain. 1998 Sep;121 ( Pt 9):1687-93
pubmed: 9762957