Home Progression of Corpus Callosum Atrophy in Early Stage of Alzheimer’s Disease
Post
Cancel

Progression of Corpus Callosum Atrophy in Early Stage of Alzheimer’s Disease

Rationale and Objectives

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies reveal that atrophy of the corpus callosum (CC) is involved in early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The aim of this study was to investigate when and how callosal changes occur in the early course of AD.

Materials and Methods

The Open Access Series of Imaging Studies data sets were used in this study to investigate callosal change. High-resolution structural MRI was performed in 196 older patients. Subjects were characterized using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR); 98 healthy controls were not demented (CDR 0), and 98 patients had clinical diagnosis of AD in the very mild dementia stage (CDR 0.5; n = 70) and the mild dementia stage (CDR 1; n = 28). A semiautomatic segmentation method was used to extract the CC in the midsagittal plane. The total and regional areas of the CC were measured.

Results

The results indicated that callosal atrophy occurred in when subjects’ CDRs were 0.5. The area of the genu and rostral body of the CC in the healthy controls (CDR 0) was significantly different from that of the subjects with very mild dementia (CDR 0.5) ( P < .05). A significant difference could also be found in the area of the rostral body and midbody of the CC between subjects with very mild dementia (CDR 0.5) and those with mild dementia (CDR 1) ( P < .05).

Conclusions

Callosal atrophy can be detected in subjects with CDRs of 0.5. The change in the CC in the early stage of AD indicates an anterior-to-posterior atrophic process as the degree of dementia assessed by the CDR (from 0 to 0.5 to 1) increases.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has been described as an irreversible, neurodegenerative brain disease and generally affects gray matter. Nevertheless, several researchers have revealed that AD is also associated with white matter pathology . The corpus callosum (CC), as the largest interconnecting white matter tract in the brain, may inevitably be affected by AD. Because the CC is responsible for most of the communication between the two cerebral hemispheres, it is important to understand how AD affects the CC.

Until now, many studies have reported significant atrophy of the CC in the process of AD. Most of these studies included patients with AD in different stages of dementia, from mild to severe. In general, investigators have classified these heterogeneous patients as an AD group in advance. In comparison to normal controls, changes of the CC are analyzed using different methods, such as the region of interest (ROI) , voxel-based morphometry, and diffusion tensor imaging . With respect to callosal change assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), most researchers have focused on subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which is a transitional stage between normal cognitive function and AD. Controversial results have been reported in ROI studies of the CC in subjects with MCI. Wang and Su found no callosal change between patients with MCI and healthy controls. Wang et al detected atrophy in the posterior subregions. Thomann et al reported reductions in anterior subregions of the CC in a group of patients with MCI. A survey of these works was performed by Di Paola et al , revealing that changes in the anterior and posterior portions of the CC might already be present in the early stage of AD. Although much attention has been paid to heterogeneous AD groups, there are few studies on homogeneous AD groups (eg, patients with mild or moderate AD).

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Materials and methods

Subjects and Imaging Data

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Measurement of CC Atrophy

Semiautomatic segmentation of the CC

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 1, Procedure of segmentation of the corpus callosum (CC). (a) Magnetic resonance image on the midsagittal plane extracted from the magnetic resonance volume. (b) Estimation of the thresholds of the CC using Gaussian mixture modeling. The blue line represents the percentage of occurrence of each intensity level of (a) . The green line represents the estimated Gaussian distribution of each class: background (and cerebral spinal fluid), gray matter, white matter, and fat from left to right. The red line represents the result of fitting the blue line with the estimated Gaussian distributions ( green lines ). (c) Region of interest of the CC obtained with dual-threshold segmentation. Ap, the most anterior point of the CC in the direction of the major axis; Pp, the most posterior point of the CC in the direction of the major axis; Ip, the most inferior point of the CC on the minor axis; Sp, the most superior point of the CC on the minor axis; T L , lower threshold; T U , upper threshold.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Division of the subregions of the CC

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 2, Diagram of the modified Witelson radial partitioning scheme. CC1, rostrum and genu; CC2, rostral body; CC3, midbody; CC4, isthmus; CC5, splenium.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Statistical Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Comparison of Descriptive Characteristics among the Groups

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 1

Descriptive Variables for Each Group

Variable Healthy Controls ( n = 98) Patients with Very Mild Dementia ( n = 70) Patients with Mild Dementia ( n = 28) Age (y) 75.9 ± 9.0 76.2 ± 7.0 77.8 ± 7.0 Men/women 26/72 31/39 ∗ 9/19 Education (y) 14.5 ± 2.9 13.8 ± 3.2 12.9 ± 3.2 MMSE score 29.0 ± 1.2 25.6 ± 3.2 ∗ 21.7 ± 3.8 † eTIV (cm 3 ) 1438.9 ± 150.2 1485.4 ± 186.6 1481.6 ± 120.8

eTIV, estimated total intracranial volume; MMSE, mini-mental state examination.

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or as numbers.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Total and Subregional CC Area Differences

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 2

Cross-sectional Areas of the Corpus Callosum and its Subregions

Region Healthy Controls ( n = 98) Patients with Very Mild Dementia ( n = 70) Patients with Mild Dementia ( n = 28) TCA 572.86 ± 8.51 543.89 ± 10.06 ∗ 504.71 ± 15.87 † CC1 162.43 ± 2.97 152.75 ± 3.51 ∗ 141.87 ± 5.54 CC2 81.50 ± 1.54 74.59 ± 1.82 ∗ 66.84 ± 2.87 † CC3 74.84 ± 1.57 72.87 ± 1.86 64.65 ± 2.95 † CC4 76.45 ± 1.82 73.82 ± 2.15 68.89 ± 3.39 CC5 177.65 ± 3.10 169.85 ± 3.67 162.46 ± 5.78

CC1, rostrum and genu; CC2, rostral body; CC3, midbody; CC4, isthmus; CC5, splenium; TCA, total corpus callosal area.

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or as numbers.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 3, Bar graph illustrating morphometric difference of total corpus callosal area among the control, very mild dementia, and mild dementia groups. Error bars represent standard deviations. ∗ The group with very mild dementia was different from the control group ( P < .05). ∗∗ The group with mild dementia was different from the group with very mild dementia ( P < .05).

Figure 4, Bar graph illustrating morphometric difference of the areas of subregions among the control, very mild dementia, and mild dementia groups. Error bars represent standard deviations. ∗ The group with very mild dementia was different from the control group ( P < .05). ∗∗ The group with mild dementia was different from the group with very mild dementia ( P < .05). C1, rostrum and genu; C2, rostral body; C3, midbody; C4, isthmus; C5, splenium.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Discussion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Conclusions

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Acknowledgment

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

  • 1. Bronge L., Bogdanovic N., Wahlund L.O.: Postmortem MRI and histopathology of white matter changes in Alzheimer brains. A quantitative, comparative study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2002; 13: pp. 205-212.

  • 2. Hua X., Leow A.D., Lee S., et. al.: 3D characterization of brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment using tensor-based morphometry. Neuroimage 2008; 41: pp. 19-34.

  • 3. Chaim T.M., Duran F.L., Uchida R.R., et. al.: Volumetric reduction of the corpus callosum in Alzheimer’s disease in vivo as assessed with voxel-based morphometry. Psychiatry Res 2007; 154: pp. 59-68.

  • 4. Hampel H., Teipel S.J., Alexander G.E., et. al.: Corpus callosum atrophy is a possible indicator of region- and cell type-specific neuronal degeneration in Alzheimer disease: a magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Arch Neurol 1998; 55: pp. 193-198.

  • 5. Hampel H., Teipel S.J., Alexander G.E., et. al.: In vivo imaging of region and cell type specific neocortical neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. Perspectives of MRI derived corpus callosum measurement for mapping disease progression and effects of therapy. Evidence from studies with MRI, EEG and PET. J Neural Transm 2002; 109: pp. 837-855.

  • 6. Teipel S.J., Bayer W., Alexander G.E., et. al.: Regional pattern of hippocampus and corpus callosum atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease in relation to dementia severity: evidence for early neocortical degeneration. Neurobiol Aging 2003; 24: pp. 85-94.

  • 7. Teipel S.J., Bayer W., Alexander G.E., et. al.: Progression of corpus callosum atrophy in Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2002; 59: pp. 243-248.

  • 8. Teipel S.J., Hampel H., Alexander G.E., et. al.: Dissociation between corpus callosum atrophy and white matter pathology in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1998; 51: pp. 1381-1385.

  • 9. Teipel S.J., Hampel H., Pietrini P., et. al.: Region-specific corpus callosum atrophy correlates with the regional pattern of cortical glucose metabolism in Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 1999; 56: pp. 467-473.

  • 10. Thomann P.A., Wustenberg T., Pantel J., et. al.: Structural changes of the corpus callosum in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006; 21: pp. 215-220.

  • 11. Tomaiuolo F., Scapin M., Di Paola M., et. al.: Gross anatomy of the corpus callosum in Alzheimer’s disease: regions of degeneration and their neuropsychological correlates. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2007; 23: pp. 96-103.

  • 12. Wang P.J., Saykin A.J., Flashman L.A., et. al.: Regionally specific atrophy of the corpus callosum in AD, MCI and cognitive complaints. Neurobiol Aging 2006; 27: pp. 1613-1617.

  • 13. Di Paola M., Luders E., Di Iulio F., et. al.: Callosal atrophy in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: different effects in different stages. Neuroimage 2010; 49: pp. 141-149.

  • 14. Hallam B.J., Brown W.S., Ross C., et. al.: Regional atrophy of the corpus callosum in dementia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2008; 14: pp. 414-423.

  • 15. Di Paola M., Di Iulio F., Cherubini A., et. al.: When, where, and how the corpus callosum changes in MCI and AD: a multimodal MRI study. Neurology 2010; 74: pp. 1136-1142.

  • 16. Wang H., Su M.Y.: Regional pattern of increased water diffusivity in hippocampus and corpus callosum in mild cognitive impairment. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006; 22: pp. 223-229.

  • 17. Di Paola M., Spalletta G., Caltagirone C.: In vivo structural neuroanatomy of corpus callosum in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment using different MRI techniques: a review. J Alzheimers Dis 2010; 20: pp. 67-95.

  • 18. Morris J.C.: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 1993; 43: pp. 2412-2414.

  • 19. Marcus D.S., Wang T.H., Parker J., et. al.: Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS): cross-sectional MRI data in young, middle aged, nondemented, and demented older adults. J Cogn Neurosci 2007; 19: pp. 1498-1507.

  • 20. Fu Y., Gao W., Zhu M., et. al.: Computer-assisted automatic localization of the human pedunculopontine nucleus in T1-weighted MR images: a preliminary study. Int J Med Robot 2009; 5: pp. 309-318.

  • 21. Hu Q., Nowinski W.L.: A rapid algorithm for robust and automatic extraction of the midsagittal plane of the human cerebrum from neuroimages based on local symmetry and outlier removal. Neuroimage 2003; 20: pp. 2153-2165.

  • 22. Dempster A.P., Laird D.M., Rubin D.B.: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc 1977; 39: pp. 1-38.

  • 23. Chaudhuri D., Samal A.: A simple method for fitting of bounding rectangle to closed regions. Patt Recog 2007; 40: pp. 1981-1989.

  • 24. Ryberg C., Rostrup E., Stegmann M.B., et. al.: Clinical significance of corpus callosum atrophy in a mixed elderly population. Neurobiol Aging 2007; 28: pp. 955-963.

  • 25. Witelson S.F.: Hand and sex differences in the isthmus and genu of the human corpus callosum. A postmortem morphological study. Brain 1989; 112: pp. 799-835.

  • 26. Cummings J.L., Cole G.: Alzheimer disease. JAMA 2002; 287: pp. 2335-2338.

  • 27. Teipel S.J., Stahl R., Dietrich O., et. al.: Multivariate network analysis of fiber tract integrity in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage 2007; 34: pp. 985-995.

  • 28. Zhang Y., Schuff N., Jahng G.H., et. al.: Diffusion tensor imaging of cingulum fibers in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2007; 68: pp. 13-19.

  • 29. Li S., Pu F., Shi F., et. al.: Regional white matter decreases in Alzheimer’s disease using optimized voxel-based morphometry. Acta Radiol 2008; 49: pp. 84-90.

  • 30. Salat D.H., Greve D.N., Pacheco J.L., et. al.: Regional white matter volume differences in nondemented aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage 2009; 44: pp. 1247-1258.

  • 31. Bartzokis G.: Age-related myelin breakdown: a developmental model of cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2004; 25: pp. 5-18.

  • 32. Braak H., Del Tredici K., Schultz C., et. al.: Vulnerability of select neuronal types to Alzheimer’s disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000; 924: pp. 53-61.

  • 33. Tang Y., Nyengaard J.R., Pakkenberg B., et. al.: Age-induced white matter changes in the human brain: a stereological investigation. Neurobiol Aging 1997; 18: pp. 609-615.

  • 34. Aboitiz F., Montiel J.: One hundred million years of interhemispheric communication: the history of the corpus callosum. Braz J Med Biol Res 2003; 36: pp. 409-420.

  • 35. Aboitiz F., Rodriguez E., Olivares R., et. al.: Age-related changes in fibre composition of the human corpus callosum: sex differences. Neuroreport 1996; 7: pp. 1761-1764.

  • 36. Hofer S., Frahm J.: Topography of the human corpus callosum revisited—comprehensive fiber tractography using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 2006; 32: pp. 989-994.

  • 37. He Q., Christ S.E., Karsch K., et. al.: Detecting 3D corpus callosum abnormalities in phenylketonuria. Int J Comput Biol Drug Des 2009; 2: pp. 289-301.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.