4.4 Article

Utility of susceptibility-weighted MRI in differentiating Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonism

Journal

NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 12, Pages 1087-1094

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-010-0677-6

Keywords

SWI; Parkinson's disease; Progressive Supra Nuclear Palsy; Multiple System Atrophy

Funding

  1. [5181]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neuropathological studies report varying patterns of brain mineralization in Parkinson's diseases (PD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and Parkinson variant of multiple system atrophy (MSA-P). Susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) is the ideal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique to detect mineralization of the brain. The purpose of this study was to test if SWI can differentiate PD, PSP, and MSA-P. Eleven patients with PD, 12 with PSP, 12 with MSA-P, and 11 healthy controls underwent SWI of the brain. Hypointensity of putamen, red nucleus, substantia nigra, and dentate nucleus in all groups were measured using an objective grading scale and scored from 0 to 3. In PSP, hypointensity score of red nucleus was higher than that in MSA-P (p = 0.001) and PD (p = 0.001), and a score of a parts per thousand yen2 differentiated the PSP group from the PD and MSA-P groups. Putaminal hypointensity score was higher in PSP when compared to that in PD (p = 0.003), and a score of a parts per thousand yen2 differentiated PSP from PD groups. SWI hypointensity scores of red nucleus and putamen had an excellent intrarater and interrater correlation. Substantia nigra hypointensity score of the PSP group was higher than that of the MSA-P (p = 0.004) and PD (p = 0.006) groups, but the scores had only a moderate intrarater and interrater correlation. SWI shows different patterns of brain mineralization in clinically diagnosed groups of PD, PSP, and MSA-P and may be considered as an additional MR protocol to help differentiate these conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available