4.4 Article

Superior Cerebellar Peduncle Atrophy in Friedreich's Ataxia Correlates with Disease Symptoms

期刊

CEREBELLUM
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 81-87

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12311-010-0232-3

关键词

Friedreich's ataxia; Superior cerebellar peduncle; Cerebellum; Volumetric MRI

资金

  1. Friedreich Ataxia Research Association (Australasia)
  2. Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance (USA)
  3. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute
  4. Melbourne International
  5. NHMRC
  6. Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance
  7. Friedreich Ataxia Research Association
  8. Pfizer Australia Neuroscience Grant Panel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Friedreich's ataxia (FRDA) is the most common early onset inherited ataxia with clinical manifestations, including gradual progression of unremitting cerebellar-sensory ataxia, peripheral sensory loss, loss of lower limb tendon reflexes and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Although atrophy of the superior cerebellar peduncle (SCP) has been reported in several magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of FRDA, the relationship of SCP changes to genetic and clinical features of FRDA has not been investigated. We acquired T1-weighted MRI scans in 12 right-handed individuals with FRDA, homozygous for a GAA expansion in intron 1 of FXN, as well as 13 healthy age-matched controls. The corrected cross-sectional areas of the right (left) SCP in the individuals with FRDA (R, 20 +/- 7.9 mm(2); L, 25 +/- 5.6 mm(2)) were significantly smaller than for controls (R, 68 +/- 16 mm(2); L, 78 +/- 17 mm(2)) (p < 0.001). The SCP volumes of individuals with FRDA were negatively correlated with Friedreich's ataxia rating scale score (r = -0.553) and disease duration (r = -0.541), and positively correlated with the age of onset (r = 0.548) (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that structural MR imaging of the SCP can provide a surrogate marker of disease severity in FRDA and support the potential role of structural MRI as a biomarker in the evaluation of neurodegenerative diseases and therapies.

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

4.4
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