Cargando…

Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease

Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. Since late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) participants tend to have age-related co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dincer, Aylin, Gordon, Brian A., Hari-Raj, Amrita, Keefe, Sarah J., Flores, Shaney, McKay, Nicole S., Paulick, Angela M., Shady Lewis, Kristine E., Feldman, Rebecca L., Hornbeck, Russ C., Allegri, Ricardo, Ances, Beau M., Berman, Sarah B., Brickman, Adam M., Brooks, William S., Cash, David M., Chhatwal, Jasmeer P., Farlow, Martin R., la Fougère, Christian, Fox, Nick C., Fulham, Michael J., Jack, Clifford R., Joseph-Mathurin, Nelly, Karch, Celeste M., Lee, Athene, Levin, Johannes, Masters, Colin L., McDade, Eric M., Oh, Hwamee, Perrin, Richard J., Raji, Cyrus, Salloway, Stephen P., Schofield, Peter R., Su, Yi, Villemagne, Victor L., Wang, Qing, Weiner, Michael W., Xiong, Chengjie, Yakushev, Igor, Morris, John C., Bateman, Randall J., L.S. Benzinger, Tammie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7689410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33395982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102491
_version_ 1783613860853317632
author Dincer, Aylin
Gordon, Brian A.
Hari-Raj, Amrita
Keefe, Sarah J.
Flores, Shaney
McKay, Nicole S.
Paulick, Angela M.
Shady Lewis, Kristine E.
Feldman, Rebecca L.
Hornbeck, Russ C.
Allegri, Ricardo
Ances, Beau M.
Berman, Sarah B.
Brickman, Adam M.
Brooks, William S.
Cash, David M.
Chhatwal, Jasmeer P.
Farlow, Martin R.
la Fougère, Christian
Fox, Nick C.
Fulham, Michael J.
Jack, Clifford R.
Joseph-Mathurin, Nelly
Karch, Celeste M.
Lee, Athene
Levin, Johannes
Masters, Colin L.
McDade, Eric M.
Oh, Hwamee
Perrin, Richard J.
Raji, Cyrus
Salloway, Stephen P.
Schofield, Peter R.
Su, Yi
Villemagne, Victor L.
Wang, Qing
Weiner, Michael W.
Xiong, Chengjie
Yakushev, Igor
Morris, John C.
Bateman, Randall J.
L.S. Benzinger, Tammie
author_facet Dincer, Aylin
Gordon, Brian A.
Hari-Raj, Amrita
Keefe, Sarah J.
Flores, Shaney
McKay, Nicole S.
Paulick, Angela M.
Shady Lewis, Kristine E.
Feldman, Rebecca L.
Hornbeck, Russ C.
Allegri, Ricardo
Ances, Beau M.
Berman, Sarah B.
Brickman, Adam M.
Brooks, William S.
Cash, David M.
Chhatwal, Jasmeer P.
Farlow, Martin R.
la Fougère, Christian
Fox, Nick C.
Fulham, Michael J.
Jack, Clifford R.
Joseph-Mathurin, Nelly
Karch, Celeste M.
Lee, Athene
Levin, Johannes
Masters, Colin L.
McDade, Eric M.
Oh, Hwamee
Perrin, Richard J.
Raji, Cyrus
Salloway, Stephen P.
Schofield, Peter R.
Su, Yi
Villemagne, Victor L.
Wang, Qing
Weiner, Michael W.
Xiong, Chengjie
Yakushev, Igor
Morris, John C.
Bateman, Randall J.
L.S. Benzinger, Tammie
author_sort Dincer, Aylin
collection PubMed
description Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. Since late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) participants tend to have age-related comorbidities, the younger-onset age in autosomal dominant AD (ADAD) may provide a more idealized model of cortical thinning in AD. To test this, the goals of this study were to compare the degree of overlap between the ADAD and LOAD cortical thinning maps and to evaluate the ability of the ADAD cortical signature regions to predict early pathological changes in cognitively normal individuals. We defined and analyzed the LOAD cortical maps of cortical thickness in 588 participants from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC) and the ADAD cortical maps in 269 participants from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) observational study. Both cohorts were divided into three groups: cognitively normal controls (n(ADRC) = 381; n(DIAN) = 145), preclinical (n(ADRC) = 153; n(DIAN) = 76), and cognitively impaired (n(ADRC) = 54; n(DIAN) = 48). Both cohorts underwent clinical assessments, 3T MRI, and amyloid PET imaging with either (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B or (18)F-florbetapir. To generate cortical signature maps of cortical thickness, we performed a vertex-wise analysis between the cognitively normal controls and impaired groups within each cohort using six increasingly conservative statistical thresholds to determine significance. The optimal cortical map among the six statistical thresholds was determined from a receiver operating characteristic analysis testing the performance of each map in discriminating between the cognitively normal controls and preclinical groups. We then performed within-cohort and cross-cohort (e.g. ADAD maps evaluated in the Knight ADRC cohort) analyses to examine the sensitivity of the optimal cortical signature maps to the amyloid levels using only the cognitively normal individuals (cognitively normal controls and preclinical groups) in comparison to hippocampal volume. We found the optimal cortical signature maps were sensitive to early increases in amyloid for the asymptomatic individuals within their respective cohorts and were significant beyond the inclusion of hippocampus volume, but the cortical signature maps performed poorly when analyzing across cohorts. These results suggest the cortical signature maps are a useful MRI biomarker of early AD-related neurodegeneration in preclinical individuals and the pattern of decline differs between LOAD and ADAD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7689410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76894102020-12-07 Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease Dincer, Aylin Gordon, Brian A. Hari-Raj, Amrita Keefe, Sarah J. Flores, Shaney McKay, Nicole S. Paulick, Angela M. Shady Lewis, Kristine E. Feldman, Rebecca L. Hornbeck, Russ C. Allegri, Ricardo Ances, Beau M. Berman, Sarah B. Brickman, Adam M. Brooks, William S. Cash, David M. Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. Farlow, Martin R. la Fougère, Christian Fox, Nick C. Fulham, Michael J. Jack, Clifford R. Joseph-Mathurin, Nelly Karch, Celeste M. Lee, Athene Levin, Johannes Masters, Colin L. McDade, Eric M. Oh, Hwamee Perrin, Richard J. Raji, Cyrus Salloway, Stephen P. Schofield, Peter R. Su, Yi Villemagne, Victor L. Wang, Qing Weiner, Michael W. Xiong, Chengjie Yakushev, Igor Morris, John C. Bateman, Randall J. L.S. Benzinger, Tammie Neuroimage Clin Regular Article Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. Since late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) participants tend to have age-related comorbidities, the younger-onset age in autosomal dominant AD (ADAD) may provide a more idealized model of cortical thinning in AD. To test this, the goals of this study were to compare the degree of overlap between the ADAD and LOAD cortical thinning maps and to evaluate the ability of the ADAD cortical signature regions to predict early pathological changes in cognitively normal individuals. We defined and analyzed the LOAD cortical maps of cortical thickness in 588 participants from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC) and the ADAD cortical maps in 269 participants from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) observational study. Both cohorts were divided into three groups: cognitively normal controls (n(ADRC) = 381; n(DIAN) = 145), preclinical (n(ADRC) = 153; n(DIAN) = 76), and cognitively impaired (n(ADRC) = 54; n(DIAN) = 48). Both cohorts underwent clinical assessments, 3T MRI, and amyloid PET imaging with either (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B or (18)F-florbetapir. To generate cortical signature maps of cortical thickness, we performed a vertex-wise analysis between the cognitively normal controls and impaired groups within each cohort using six increasingly conservative statistical thresholds to determine significance. The optimal cortical map among the six statistical thresholds was determined from a receiver operating characteristic analysis testing the performance of each map in discriminating between the cognitively normal controls and preclinical groups. We then performed within-cohort and cross-cohort (e.g. ADAD maps evaluated in the Knight ADRC cohort) analyses to examine the sensitivity of the optimal cortical signature maps to the amyloid levels using only the cognitively normal individuals (cognitively normal controls and preclinical groups) in comparison to hippocampal volume. We found the optimal cortical signature maps were sensitive to early increases in amyloid for the asymptomatic individuals within their respective cohorts and were significant beyond the inclusion of hippocampus volume, but the cortical signature maps performed poorly when analyzing across cohorts. These results suggest the cortical signature maps are a useful MRI biomarker of early AD-related neurodegeneration in preclinical individuals and the pattern of decline differs between LOAD and ADAD. Elsevier 2020-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7689410/ /pubmed/33395982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102491 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Regular Article
Dincer, Aylin
Gordon, Brian A.
Hari-Raj, Amrita
Keefe, Sarah J.
Flores, Shaney
McKay, Nicole S.
Paulick, Angela M.
Shady Lewis, Kristine E.
Feldman, Rebecca L.
Hornbeck, Russ C.
Allegri, Ricardo
Ances, Beau M.
Berman, Sarah B.
Brickman, Adam M.
Brooks, William S.
Cash, David M.
Chhatwal, Jasmeer P.
Farlow, Martin R.
la Fougère, Christian
Fox, Nick C.
Fulham, Michael J.
Jack, Clifford R.
Joseph-Mathurin, Nelly
Karch, Celeste M.
Lee, Athene
Levin, Johannes
Masters, Colin L.
McDade, Eric M.
Oh, Hwamee
Perrin, Richard J.
Raji, Cyrus
Salloway, Stephen P.
Schofield, Peter R.
Su, Yi
Villemagne, Victor L.
Wang, Qing
Weiner, Michael W.
Xiong, Chengjie
Yakushev, Igor
Morris, John C.
Bateman, Randall J.
L.S. Benzinger, Tammie
Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease
title Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease
title_full Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease
title_fullStr Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease
title_full_unstemmed Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease
title_short Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease
title_sort comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant alzheimer disease
topic Regular Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7689410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33395982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102491
work_keys_str_mv AT dinceraylin comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT gordonbriana comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT harirajamrita comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT keefesarahj comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT floresshaney comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT mckaynicoles comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT paulickangelam comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT shadylewiskristinee comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT feldmanrebeccal comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT hornbeckrussc comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT allegriricardo comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT ancesbeaum comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT bermansarahb comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT brickmanadamm comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT brookswilliams comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT cashdavidm comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT chhatwaljasmeerp comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT farlowmartinr comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT lafougerechristian comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT foxnickc comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT fulhammichaelj comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT jackcliffordr comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT josephmathurinnelly comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT karchcelestem comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT leeathene comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT levinjohannes comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT masterscolinl comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT mcdadeericm comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT ohhwamee comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT perrinrichardj comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT rajicyrus comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT sallowaystephenp comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT schofieldpeterr comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT suyi comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT villemagnevictorl comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT wangqing comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT weinermichaelw comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT xiongchengjie comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT yakushevigor comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT morrisjohnc comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT batemanrandallj comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT lsbenzingertammie comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease
AT comparingcorticalsignaturesofatrophybetweenlateonsetandautosomaldominantalzheimerdisease