6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Quantitative Assessment of Brain Stem and Cerebellar Atrophy in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Types 3 and 6: Impact on Clinical Status

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

          Cerebellar and brain stem atrophy are important features in SCA3, whereas SCA6 has been regarded as a “pure” cerebellar disease. However, recent neuropathologic studies have described additional brain stem involvement in SCA6. We, therefore, aimed to investigate the occurrence and impact of regional infratentorial brain volume differences in patients with SCA3 and SCA6.

          MATERIALS AND METHODS:

          Thirty-four patients with genetically proved SCA (SCA3, n = 17; SCA6, n = 17) and age-matched healthy control subjects ( n = 51) were included. In all subjects, high-resolution T1-weighted images were acquired with a 1.5T MR imaging scanner. Individual brain stem and cerebellar volumes were calculated by using semiautomated volumetry approaches. For all patients with SCA, clinical dysfunction was scored according to the ICARS. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the contribution of regional volumes to explain the variance in clinical dysfunction in each SCA genotype.

          RESULTS:

          Cerebellar volumes were lower in patients with SCA6 compared with controls and with those with SCA3. In contrast to controls, brain stem volume loss was observed in patients with SCA3 ( P < .001) and, to a lesser extent, in those with SCA6 ( P = .027). Significant linear dependencies were found between ICARS and cerebellum volume (SCA3: R 2 = 0.29, P = .02; SCA6: R 2 = 0.29, P = .03) and between ICARS and brain stem volume (SCA3: R 2 = 0.49, P = .002; SCA6: R 2 = 0.39, P < .01) in both subtypes. Both cerebellar and brain stem atrophy contributed independently to the variance in clinical dysfunction in SCA6, while in SCA3, only brain stem atrophy was of relevance.

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Our current findings in accordance with recent neuroradiologic and pathoanatomic studies suggest brain stem and cerebellar volume loss as attractive surrogate markers of disease severity in SCA3 and SCA6.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
          AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
          ajnr
          ajnr
          AJNR
          AJNR: American Journal of Neuroradiology
          American Society of Neuroradiology
          0195-6108
          1936-959X
          May 2011
          : 32
          : 5
          : 890-897
          Affiliations
          [1] aFrom the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (L.E., B.B., O.K., C.L.), St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
          [2] bFraunhofer-MeVis (H.K.H.), Bremen, Germany
          [3] cDepartment of Neurology and Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research (L.S.), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
          [4] dGerman Center of Neurodegenerative Diseases (L.S.), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
          Author notes
          Please address correspondence to Carsten Lukas, MD, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Gudrunstr 56, 44791 Bochum, Germany; e-mail: Carsten.Lukas@ 123456rub.de
          Article
          PMC7965570 PMC7965570 7965570 10-00789
          10.3174/ajnr.A2387
          7965570
          21372168
          7552ac7f-ead4-41d2-88bc-973055b487e2
          Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
          History
          : 27 July 2010
          : 24 September 2010
          Categories
          Brain

          Comments

          Comment on this article