4.5 Article

Imaging-based differential diagnosis between multiple system atrophy and Parkinson's disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 368, 期 -, 页码 104-108

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2016.06.061

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Multiple system atrophy; Middle cerebellar peduncle; Putamen; Cerebellum; MIBG; Magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. Research Committee of CNS Degenerative Disease from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  2. Novartis Pharma
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K19487] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are many tools for differentiating between multiple system atrophy with predominant parkinsonian features (MSA-P) and Parkinson's disease (PD). These include middle cerebellar peduncle (MCP) width, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value of the putamen and cerebellum, and I-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) myocardial scintigraphy images. We aimed to directly compare the above-mentioned methods, and to determine the optimal tool for differential diagnosis. Eleven patients with MSA-P and 36 patients with PD were enrolled. Of these, 7 patients with MSA-P and 14 patients with PD were chosen as background-matched subjects. We measured MCP width, ADC value of the putamen and cerebellum, and MIBG myocardial scintigraphy images. Area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was assessed to compare the above-mentioned methods. MCP width and ADC value of the putamen may be helpful for differentiating between MSA-P and PD relative to other methods in background-matched patients (MCP, AUC = 0.95; putamen ADC, AUC = 0.88; cerebellar ADC, AUC = 0.70; MIBG, AUC = 0.78). Similar AUCs were seen in all patients with different backgrounds. Our findings suggested that MCP width and ADC value of the putamen could be superior to ADC value of the cerebellum and MIBG uptake for differentiating between MSA-P and PD. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据