Does registration of serial MRI improve diagnosis of dementia?

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does registration of serial MRI improve diagnosis of dementia?

AU - Barnes, Josephine

AU - Mitchell, L Anne

AU - Kennedy, Jonathan

AU - Bastos-Leite, Antonio J

AU - Barker, Suzie

AU - Lehmann, Manja

AU - Nordstrom, R Chris

AU - Frost, Chris

AU - Smith, Joseph R

AU - Garde, Ellen

AU - Rossor, Martin N

AU - Fox, Nick C

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Introduction We aimed to assess the value of a second MR scan in the radiological diagnosis of dementia. Methods One hundred twenty subjects with clinical followup of at least 1 year with two scans were selected from a cognitive disorders clinic. Scans were reviewed as a single first scan (method A), two unregistered scans presented sideby- side (method B) and a registered pair (method C). Scans were presented to two neuroradiologists and a clinician together with approximate scan interval (if applicable) and age. Raters decided on a main and subtype diagnosis. Results There was no evidence that differences between methods (expressed as relative odds of a correct response) differed between reviewers (p=0.17 for degenerative condition or not, p=0.5 for main diagnosis, p=0.16 for subtype). Accordingly, results were pooled over reviewers. For distinguishing normal/non-progressors from degenerative conditions, the proportions correctly diagnosed were higher with methods B and C than with A (p=0.001, both tests). The difference between method B and C was not statistically significant (p=0.18). For main diagnosis, the proportion of correct diagnoses were highest with method C for all three reviewers; however, this was not statistically significant comparing with method A (p=0.23) or with method B (p=0.16). For subtype diagnosis, there was some evidence that method C was better than method A (p=0.01) and B (p=0.048). Conclusions Serial MRI and registration may improve visual diagnosis in dementia.

AB - Introduction We aimed to assess the value of a second MR scan in the radiological diagnosis of dementia. Methods One hundred twenty subjects with clinical followup of at least 1 year with two scans were selected from a cognitive disorders clinic. Scans were reviewed as a single first scan (method A), two unregistered scans presented sideby- side (method B) and a registered pair (method C). Scans were presented to two neuroradiologists and a clinician together with approximate scan interval (if applicable) and age. Raters decided on a main and subtype diagnosis. Results There was no evidence that differences between methods (expressed as relative odds of a correct response) differed between reviewers (p=0.17 for degenerative condition or not, p=0.5 for main diagnosis, p=0.16 for subtype). Accordingly, results were pooled over reviewers. For distinguishing normal/non-progressors from degenerative conditions, the proportions correctly diagnosed were higher with methods B and C than with A (p=0.001, both tests). The difference between method B and C was not statistically significant (p=0.18). For main diagnosis, the proportion of correct diagnoses were highest with method C for all three reviewers; however, this was not statistically significant comparing with method A (p=0.23) or with method B (p=0.16). For subtype diagnosis, there was some evidence that method C was better than method A (p=0.01) and B (p=0.048). Conclusions Serial MRI and registration may improve visual diagnosis in dementia.

U2 - 10.1007/s00234-010-0665-x

DO - 10.1007/s00234-010-0665-x

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0028-3940

VL - 52

SP - 987

EP - 995

JO - Neuroradiology

JF - Neuroradiology

IS - 11

ER -