The Differential Diagnostic Value of the Callosal Angle and Evans Index in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease

Author(s): Mengqi Liu, Jing Zhang, Linxiong Zong, Wenping Fan, Botao Wang, Zhiye Chen*

Journal Name: Current Medical Imaging
Formerly: Current Medical Imaging Reviews

Volume 17 , Issue 7 , 2021


Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Background: Callosal Angle (CA) and Evans Index (EI) are considered as imaging biomarkers to diagnose normal-pressure hydrocephalus using traditional MR measurement methods.

Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the differential diagnostic value of CA and EI in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD).

Methods: Five-hundred and two subjects were selected from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database, which included 168 Normal Controls (NC), 233 MCI and 101 AD patients. The structural MR images were interactively applied with multiplanar reconstruction to measure the CA and EI.

Results: CA presented no significant difference among NC, MCI and AD groups (H value = 3.848, P value = 0.146), and EI demonstrated higher value in MCI and AD groups than that in NC groups (P = 0.000 and 0.001, respectively). MCI group had significant larger EI (0.29±0.04) than (0.27±0.03) NC group in 70-75 years old sub-groups. ROC showed that the area under the curve was 0.704±0.045 for NC-MCI in 70-75 years old groups. The correlation analysis indicated that EI was significantly negatively related to MMSE scores of MCI patients (r = -0.131, P = 0.046).

Conclusion: EI might serve as a screening imaging biomarker for MCI in 70-75 years old patients, and show limited differential value for the diagnosis of AD. CA could present no diagnostic value for MCI and AD in the current study.

Keywords: Mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, callosal angle, evans index, magnetic resonance imaging, brain.

[1]
Virhammar J, Laurell K, Cesarini KG, Larsson EM. The callosal angle measured on MRI as a predictor of outcome in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2014; 120(1): 178-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2013.8.JNS13575] [PMID: 24074491]
[2]
Ishii K, Kanda T, Harada A, et al. Clinical impact of the callosal angle in the diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Eur Radiol 2008; 18(11): 2678-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1044-4] [PMID: 18500524]
[3]
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(1): 141-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.07.050] [PMID: 19643188]
[4]
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(1): 67-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JAD-2010-1370] [PMID: 20164572]
[5]
Van Schependom J, Niemantsverdriet E, Smeets D, Engelborghs S. Callosal circularity as an early marker for Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage Clin 2018; 19: 516-26.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.05.018] [PMID: 29984160]
[6]
LeMay M, New PF. Radiological diagnosis of occult normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Radiology 1970; 96(2): 347-58.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/96.2.347] [PMID: 5431420]
[7]
Sjaastad O, Nordvik A. The corpus callosal angle in the diagnosis of cerebral ventricular enlargement. Acta Neurol Scand 1973; 49(3): 396-406.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.1973.tb01312.x] [PMID: 4542888]
[8]
Di Ieva A, Valli M, Cusimano MD. Distinguishing Alzheimer’s disease from normal pressure hydrocephalus: a search for MRI biomarkers. J Alzheimers Dis 2014; 38(2): 331-50.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JAD-130581] [PMID: 23963288]
[9]
Miskin N, Patel H, Franceschi AM, et al. Alzheimer’s Disease neuroimaging initiative. Diagnosis of normal-pressure hydrocephalus: Use of traditional measures in the era of volumetric MR imaging. Radiology 2017; 285(1): 197-205.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161216] [PMID: 28498794]
[10]
Sherman JL, Citrin CM, Gangarosa RE, Bowen BJ. The MR appearance of CSF flow in patients with ventriculomegaly. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987; 148(1): 193-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.148.1.193] [PMID: 3491514]
[11]
Li X, Ba M, Ng KP, et al. Characterizing biomarker features of cognitively normal individuals with ventriculomegaly. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2017; 10: 12-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2017.08.001] [PMID: 29159265]
[12]
Relkin N, Marmarou A, Klinge P, Bergsneider M, Black PM. Diagnosing idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2005; 57(Suppl. 3): S4-S16.
[PMID: 16160425]
[13]
Synek V, Reuben JR, Du Boulay GH. Comparing Evans’ index and computerized axial tomography in assessing relationship of ventricular size to brain size. Neurology 1976; 26(3): 231-3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.26.3.231] [PMID: 1082559]
[14]
Jacoby RJ, Levy R, Dawson JM. Computed tomography in the elderly: I. The normal population. Br J Psychiatry 1980; 136: 249-55.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.136.3.249] [PMID: 6966952]
[15]
Toma AK, Holl E, Kitchen ND, Watkins LD. Evans’ index revisited: the need for an alternative in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2011; 68(4): 939-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e318208f5e0] [PMID: 21221031]
[16]
Bourne SK, Conrad A, Neimat JS, Davis TL. Linear measurements of the cerebral ventricles are correlated with adult ventricular volume. J Clin Neurosci 2013; 20(5): 763-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2012.10.002] [PMID: 23528412]
[17]
Ambarki K, Israelsson H, Wåhlin A, Birgander R, Eklund A, Malm J. Brain ventricular size in healthy elderly: comparison between Evans index and volume measurement. Neurosurgery 2010; 67(1): 94-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000370939.30003.D1] [PMID: 20559096]
[18]
Brix MK, Westman E, Simmons A, et al. The Evans’ Index revisited: New cut-off levels for use in radiological assessment of ventricular enlargement in the elderly. Eur J Radiol 2017; 95: 28-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.013] [PMID: 28987681]
[19]
Karypidou E, Megagiannis P, Papaoikonomou D, Pelteki N, Gkatzima O, Tsolaki M. Callosal Angle and Evans Index predict beta amyloid and tau protein in patients with dementia. Hell J Nucl Med 2019; 22(Suppl.): 51-8.
[PMID: 30877723]
[20]
Reinard K, Basheer A, Phillips S, et al. Simple and reproducible linear measurements to determine ventricular enlargement in adults. Surg Neurol Int 2015; 6: 59.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.154777] [PMID: 25883851]
[21]
Chen Z, Chen X, Liu M, Liu S, Yu S, Ma L. Magnetic Resonance Image Texture Analysis of the Periaqueductal Gray Matter in Episodic Migraine Patients without T2-Visible Lesions. Korean J Radiol 2018; 19(1): 85-92.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.1.85] [PMID: 29354004]
[22]
Sindorio C, Abbritti RV, Raffa G, et al. Neuropsychological assessment in the differential diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. An important tool for the maintenance and restoration of neuronal and neuropsychological functions. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2017; 124: 283-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39546-3_41] [PMID: 28120085]
[23]
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15(2): 155-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012] [PMID: 27330520]
[24]
Kiefer M, Unterberg A. The differential diagnosis and treatment of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2012; 109(1-2): 15-25.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2012.0015] [PMID: 22282714]
[25]
Mantovani P, Albini-Riccioli L, Giannini G, et al. BOLOGNA PRO-HYDRO Study Group. Anterior callosal angle: A new Marker of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus? World Neurosurg 2020; 139: e548-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.085] [PMID: 32348895]
[26]
Lee I, Ambaru B, Thakkar P, Marcotte EM, Rhee SY. Rational association of genes with traits using a genome-scale gene network for Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28(2): 149-56.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1603] [PMID: 20118918]


open access plus

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 17
ISSUE: 7
Year: 2021
Published on: 23 December, 2020
Page: [889 - 896]
Pages: 8
DOI: 10.2174/1573405616666201223150004

Article Metrics

PDF: 126
HTML: 2