4.5 Article

MR Imaging of Familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: A Blinded and Controlled Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 1638-1643

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1217

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS43488, R01 NS043488] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The E200K mutation of the PRNP (prion protein) gene is the most common cause of familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (fCJD), which has imaging and clinical features that are similar to the sporadic form. The purpose of this study was to conduct a controlled and blinded evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging in this unique population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the MR imaging characteristics of 15 early stage familial CJD patients (age, 60 +/- 7 years) with a group of 22 healthy subjects from the same families (age, 61 +/- 8 years). MR imaging included diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), T2-weighted fast spin-echo imaging, and a fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequence. The scans were rated for abnormalities by an experienced neuroradiologist blind to diagnosis, group assignment, age, and sex. RESULTS: Thirteen of 15 fCJD subjects had abnormal MR imaging. FLAIR signal intensity abnormality in the caudate or putamen nuclei demonstrated a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 91 %. DWI abnormality in the caudate nucleus showed a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 100%. Abnormalities in the thalamus (6 patients), cingulate gyrus 16 patients), frontal lobes (4 patients), and occipital lobes (3 patients) were best detected with DWI. No signal intensity abnormalities were demonstrated in the cerebellum. T2-weighted and T1-weighted sequences were uninformative. CONCLUSIONS: FLAIR and DWI abnormalities in the caudate nucleus and putamen offer the best sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing fCJD. Our findings support recent recommendations that MR imaging should be added to the diagnostic evaluation of CJD.

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