Persson Karin, Barca Maria Lage, Cavallin Lena, Brækhus Anne, Knapskog Anne-Brita, Selbæk Geir, Engedal Knut
1 Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
2 Department of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Acta Radiol. 2018 Aug;59(8):997-1001. doi: 10.1177/0284185117743778. Epub 2017 Nov 27.
Background Different clinically feasible methods for evaluation of medial temporal lobe atrophy exists and are useful in diagnostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Purpose To compare the diagnostic properties of two clinically available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based methods-an automated volumetric software, NeuroQuant® (NQ) (evaluation of hippocampus volume) and the Scheltens scale (visual evaluation of medial temporal lobe atrophy [MTA])-in patients with AD dementia, and subjective and mild cognitive impairment (non-dementia). Material and Methods MRIs from 56 patients (31 AD, 25 non-dementia) were assessed with both methods. Correlations between the methods were calculated and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses that yield area under the curve (AUC) statistics were conducted. Results High correlations were found between the two MRI assessments for the total hippocampal volume measured with NQ and mean MTA score (-0.753, P < 0.001), for the right (-0.767, P < 0.001), and for the left (-0.675, P < 0.001) sides. The NQ total measure yielded somewhat higher AUC (0.88, "good") compared to the MTA mean measure (0.80, "good") in the comparison of patients with AD and non-dementia, but the accuracy was in favor of the MTA scale. Conclusion The two methods correlated highly and both methods reached equally "good" power.
背景 存在多种临床上可行的评估内侧颞叶萎缩的方法,这些方法在阿尔茨海默病(AD)的诊断检查中很有用。目的 比较两种基于磁共振成像(MRI)的临床可用方法——一种自动容积软件NeuroQuant®(NQ)(评估海马体积)和Scheltens量表(内侧颞叶萎缩[MTA]的视觉评估)——在AD痴呆患者以及主观认知障碍和轻度认知障碍(非痴呆)患者中的诊断特性。材料与方法 用这两种方法对56例患者(31例AD,25例非痴呆)的MRI进行评估。计算两种方法之间的相关性,并进行生成曲线下面积(AUC)统计量的受试者操作特征曲线(ROC)分析。结果 对于用NQ测量的总海马体积与平均MTA评分(-0.753,P < 0.001)、右侧(-0.767,P < 0.001)和左侧(-0.675,P < 0.001),两种MRI评估之间发现高度相关性。在AD患者与非痴呆患者的比较中,NQ的总体测量得出的AUC(0.88,“良好”)略高于MTA平均测量得出的AUC(0.80,“良好”),但准确性更有利于MTA量表。结论 两种方法相关性很高,且两种方法的效能均达到同样“良好”的水平。