SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Extrastriatal 123I-FP-CIT SPECT impairment in Parkinson’s disease – the PPMI cohort

· 2020-04-13

DOI: 10.21203/rs.2.22012/v2

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Background: Neuropathological data and nuclear medicine imaging show extensive serotonergic impairment in Parkinson’s disease (PD). We undertook a case-controlled analysis of 123I-FP-CIT SPECT images to measure extrastriatal serotonergic transporters (SERT) in PD using the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) cohort. Methods: We included all PD (n=154) and Control subjects (n=62) with available 123I-FP-CIT SPECT imaging and high-resolution T1-weighted MRI for coregistration (PD: mean age 61.6 years, 62% male, disease duration 26 months, MDS-UPDRS III score 22). 123I-FP-CIT SPECT images were processed with PETPVE12 using an exploratory voxel-wise analysis including partial-volume effect correction. Linear regressions were performed in the PD group to assess correlations between region of interest 123I-FP-CIT uptake and clinical motor and non-motor impairment.Results: Compared to Controls, PD exhibited an uptake reduction in bilateral caudate nucleus, putamen, insula, amygdala and right pallidum (family-wise error (FWE)-corrected p123I-FP-CIT binding in caudate nucleus, putamen and pallidum (all p0.45) or excessive daytime sleepiness (all p > 0.29). Conclusions: In addition to the well-established striatal deficit, this study provides evidence of a major extrastriatal 123I-FP-CIT impairment, and therefore of an altered serotonergic transmission in early PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.