4.7 Article

Diagnosis of Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus: Use of Traditional Measures in the Era of Volumetric MR Imaging

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 285, Issue 1, Pages 197-205

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017161216

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01 AG024904]
  2. National Institute on Aging
  3. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the diagnostic performance of the callosal angle (CA) and Evans index (EI) measures and to determine their role versus automated volumetric methods in clinical radiology. Materials and Methods: Magnetic resonance (MR) examinations performed before surgery (within 1-5 months of the MR examination) in 36 shunt-responsive patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH; mean age, 75 years; age range, 58-87 years; 26 men, 10 women) and MR examinations of ageand sex-matched patients with Alzheimer disease (n = 34) and healthy control volunteers (n = 36) were studied. Three blinded observers independently measured EI and CA for each patient. Volumetric segmentation of global gray matter, white matter, ventricles, and hippocampi was performed by using software. These measures were tested by using multivariable logistic regression models to determine which combination of metrics is most accurate in diagnosis. Results: The model that used CA and EI demonstrated 89.6%93.4% accuracy and average area under the curve of 0.96 in differentiating patients with NPH from patients without NPH (ie, Alzheimer disease and healthy control). The regression model that used volumetric predictors of gray matter and white matter was 94.3% accurate. Conclusion: CA and EI may serve as a screening tool to help the radiologist differentiate patients with NPH from patients without NPH, which would allow for designation of patients for further volumetric assessment. (C) RSNA, 2017

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available