Lower body parkinsonism: rethinking MRI planimetry.
Lower body parkinsonism: rethinking MRI planimetry.
Where did the research take place?
The study site has not been established. Author addresses may differ from where the research occurred.
Lisbon, PT · Author affiliation
Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santa Maria, Portugal.Location evidence
Torres Vedras, PT · Author affiliation
CNS - Campus Neurológico, Torres Vedras, Portugal; Neurology Department, Unidade Local de Saúde Loures-Odivelas, Portugal.Location evidence
PT · Author affiliation · country only
NOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal.Location evidence
A plain-language reading has not been prepared for this paper yet.
Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) planimetric biomarkers such as the midbrain to pons (M/P) ratio, magnetic resonance parkinsonism index (MRPI), and MRPI 2.0 have demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy discriminating Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP) patients from other atypical parkinsonisms and Parkinson's Disease (PD). However, these indexes have not been studied in the specific context of lower body parkinsonism (LBP), where the differential diagnosis between PSP, vascular parkinsonism (VP) and normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is of great clinical relevance. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to study MRI planimetry in LBP patients, assessing its role in the differential diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed MRI planimetric measures, ratios and parkinsonism indexes in a retrospective sample of 71 subjects with an established clinical diagnosis: 23 of VP, 12 of NPH, 23 of PSP, compared with a group of 13 PD patients without gait or postural changes. RESULTS: All groups with LBP-associated diagnosis showed smaller midbrain areas and wider third ventricle and frontal horns widths than the PD group. The PSP group presented the highest medians of P/M ratio, MRPI and MRPI 2.0, significantly different from all groups except NPH. The MRPI 2.0 discriminates PSP and NPH from VP patients at group level. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that MRPI 2.0 is able to differentiate PSP and NPH from VP at group level contributing to the differential diagnosis of LBP. Additionally, midbrain size reduction, and third ventricle and frontal horns enlargement may constitute key imaging features of LBP phenotype, including VP, NPH and PSP patients, differing from PD.