Next Article in Journal
Phantosmia in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review of the Phenomenology of Olfactory Hallucinations
Previous Article in Journal
The Beneficial Outcome of Subsequent Treatment with Anakinra during the Chronic Phase of Febrile Infection-Related Epilepsy Syndrome (FIRES): A Case Report
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Neurology International
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/neurolint16010001
neurolint-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Planimetric and Volumetric Brainstem MRI Markers in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple System Atrophy, and Corticobasal Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Maria-Evgenia Brinia
,
Ioanna Kapsali
,
Nikolaos Giagkou
and
Vasilios C. Constantinides
*
First Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Eginition Hospital, 11528 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Neurol. Int. 2024, 16(1), 1-19; https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint16010001
Submission received: 12 November 2023 / Revised: 13 December 2023 / Accepted: 13 December 2023 / Published: 19 December 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Various MRI markers—including midbrain and pons areas (Marea, Parea) and volumes (Mvol, Pvol), ratios (M/Parea, M/Pvol), and composite markers (magnetic resonance imaging Parkinsonism Indices 1,2; MRPI 1,2)—have been proposed as imaging markers of Richardson’s syndrome (RS) and multiple system atrophy–Parkinsonism (MSA-P). A systematic review/meta-analysis of relevant studies aiming to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging markers is lacking. Methods: Pubmed and Scopus were searched for studies with >10 patients (RS, MSA-P or CBS) and >10 controls with data on Marea, Parea, Mvol, Pvol, M/Parea, M/Pvol, MRPI 1, and MRPI 2. Cohen’s d, as a measure of effect size, was calculated for all markers in RS, MSA-P, and CBS. Results: Twenty-five studies on RS, five studies on MSA-P, and four studies on CBS were included. Midbrain area provided the greatest effect size for differentiating RS from controls (Cohen’s d = −3.10; p < 0.001), followed by M/Parea and MRPI 1. MSA-P had decreased midbrain and pontine areas. Included studies exhibited high heterogeneity, whereas publication bias was low. Conclusions: Midbrain area is the optimal MRI marker for RS, and pons area is optimal for MSA-P. M/Parea and MRPIs produce smaller effect sizes for differentiating RS from controls.

1. Introduction

Atypical Parkinsonian disorders (APD) is a term used to describe three rare neurodegenerative Parkinsonian disorders, namely progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), multiple system atrophy (MSA), and corticobasal syndrome (CBS) [1,2,3]. PSP exhibits significant phenomenological heterogeneity, with Richardson’s syndrome (RS) being the most common syndrome, characterized by supranuclear gaze palsy and early postural instability. MSA presents with two distinct syndromes, with predominant parkinsonian (MSA-P) or cerebellar (MSA-C) symptomatology. Despite the presence of distinct clinical features in RS, MSA-P, and CBS, misdiagnosis is common, particularly at early disease stages and in oligosymptomatic cases [4,5].
In an effort to support a timely and accurate diagnosis, multiple imaging markers have been implemented. These morphometric MRI markers focus on the relatively selective midbrain and superior cerebellar peduncle (SCP) atrophy in RS, as evidenced by neuropathological studies [6]. Likewise, MSA (predominantly MSA-C and to a lesser extent MSA-P) is characterized by relatively selective pontine and middle cerebellar peduncle (MCP) atrophy [7]. Multiple studies have examined the diagnostic accuracy of diverse morphometric brainstem MRI markers, including linear distances, surfaces and volumes of the midbrain, the pons, SCPs, and MCPs [8,9,10,11]. Additionally, composite MRI markers, such as the magnetic resonance Parkinsonism indices 1 and 2 (MRPI 1 and 2) have been introduced in an effort to increase discriminative power by combining multiple morphometrical measurements [12,13].
Despite the abundance of relevant studies, significant differences between studies in study designs, cohort characteristics, and imaging markers implemented have resulted in discrepant results regarding the diagnostic accuracy of these MRI markers in different APDs.
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to present data regarding MRI brainstem imaging markers in RS, MSA-P, and CBS in a systematic and comprehensive manner. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the most commonly applied MRI markers in cohorts of RS, MSA-P, and CBS, with a particular focus on planimetric and volumetric markers of midbrain and pons as well as composite MRI markers (MRPI 1 and 2).

2. Materials and Methods

The present study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO; ID: CRD42023475739) [14]. No institutional board review approval was obtained since only previously published data were utilized.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

PubMed and Scopus were searched from database inception to 15 October 2023 by three researchers independently (M.-E.B., I.K., and N.G.). In cases of disagreement regarding the eligibility of a study, these issues were discussed by all researchers and were included only after a consensus was reached. An additional manual search was performed on all included studies regarding: (a) all references of included studies; (b) all citations of these studies; (c) relevant studies (from PubMed). In cases of full text unavailability, the corresponding authors of papers were contacted in an effort to retrieve full texts.
The search strategy applied was: (MRI OR magnetic resonance OR brainstem OR midbrain OR pons OR cerebellar peduncle OR volume OR volumetry OR surface OR area OR planimetry OR distance OR diameter OR width) AND (CBD OR CBS OR corticobasal OR extrapyramidal OR gait apraxia OR MSA or multiple system atrophy OR parkinsonian OR parkinsonism OR PGAF or PSP or Richardson or supranuclear).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection

Inclusion criteria were:
(a)
Publication in English language;
(b)
Peer-reviewed, original research papers;
(c)
Studies with ≥ten patients in at least one patient group (RS, MSA-P or CBS) and ≥ten control subjects;
(d)
Studies including data on at least one of the following MRI markers: midbrain area (Marea), pons area (Parea), midbrain-to-pons-area ratio (M/Parea), midbrain volume (Mvol), pons volume (Pvol), midbrain-to-pons-volume ratio (M/Pvol), magnetic resonance Parkinsonism index 1 or 2 (MRPI 1 or MRPI 2, respectively);
(e)
Studies with available, extractable, or retrievable mean values and standard deviations (mean, SD) of MRI markers.
Exclusion criteria were:
(a)
Non-original studies (reviews, meta-analyses, case reports);
(b)
Studies with identical samples in different publications;
(c)
Studies including PSP cohorts of diverse phenotypes (e.g., RS, PSP-parkinsonism, primary gait apraxia with freezing) with unavailable or non-extractable data for the RS syndrome;
(d)
Studies including MSA cohorts of diverse phenotypes (i.e., MSA-cerebellar and MSA-parkinsonian) with unavailable or non-extractable data for MSA-P.
In cases of publications with possible partial overlap of cohorts, an algorithm including evaluation of authorship, study characteristics, sample characteristics, constructs’ and measures’ definitions, and study effects was applied to reach a decision regarding the eligibility of studies [15].

2.3. Data Extraction

Data extraction was performed by two authors independently (V.C.C. and N.G.). In cases of disagreement, a consensus was reached after joint assessment of the data from the original study.
Information extracted from studies included the following: first author; year of publication; study title; study design (i.e., retrospective, prospective, cross-sectional, unspecified); period of recruitment; study center.
Additionally, for each of the four groups included in this meta-analysis (RS, MSA-P, CBS, control group), the following information was extracted where available: male/female ratio; mean age; mean disease duration (applicable only in the patient groups). Also extracted were the subject count (n), mean value, and standard deviation (SD) of: (a) Marea; (b) Parea; (c) M/Parea; (d) Mvol; (e) Pvol; (f) M/Pvol: (g) MRPI 1; and (h) MRPI 2 per study group.
In cases of missing data on the n, mean, or SD of MRI markers, supplementary files of relevant papers were reviewed. Additionally, data were extracted from scatterplots, boxplot, or error bar plots where applicable through the use of WebPlotDigitizer version 4.6 (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd; access date: 15 November 2023).

2.4. Summary Measures

Standardized mean difference (SMD), as expressed by Cohen’s d, was calculated to measure the effect size on the distinction between planimetric, volumetric, and composite MRI markers in APD patients and control subjects. Effect size based on Cohen’s d was interpreted as very small (d ≈ 0.01), small (d ≈ 0.2), medium (d ≈ 0.5), large (d ≈ 0.8), very large (d ≈ 1.2), or huge (d ≈ 2.0), based on recommendations [16].

2.5. Quality Evaluation

Quality evaluation was performed by three authors independently (M.-E.B., I.K., N.G.) through use of the QUADAS-2 tool [17]. It consists of four key domains—patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow/timing—which are assessed in terms of bias and concerns regarding applicability. For the present meta-analysis, the signaling questions regarding the presence or absence of “pre-specified cut-offs” from the “reference standard” domain and the “appropriate interval between index test and reference standard” from the “flow and timing” domain were not implemented due to non-applicability. Additionally, the signaling question “Was a case–control design avoided?” from the “patient selection” domain was omitted since the primary aim of this meta-analysis was the comparison of MRI markers between APD patients and control subjects. Thus, per definition, all included studies had a case–control design. In cases of disagreement, a consensus was reached after discussions between the authors.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The Q statistic was used to assess the presence or absence of heterogeneity and the I2 statistic was applied to quantify between-study heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was classified as low, moderate, or high with I2 values of <25%, 25–50%, and >50%, respectively.
To control for between-study heterogeneity, a random effects model was applied for meta-analysis. Cohen’s d was calculated as a measure of the effect size of distinction between MRI markers in APD patients and control groups. Analyses were performed for each patient group (RA, MSA-P, and CBS) against the control group. No direct comparison between patient groups was performed. Forest plots were produced and displayed effect sizes, standard errors, confidence interval limits, p-values, and weights.
To test for publication bias, funnel plots were constructed with Cohen’s d on the x-axis and standard error on the y-axis in order to visualize any outlying studies. Additionally, the Egger linear regression test was performed in order to quantify bias.
SPSS vs. 28 (IBM Corp. Released 2021; IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp) was used by one author (V.C.C.) for all statistical analyses. A two-tailed p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search and Screening Results

In total, 2076 were identified from PubMed and Scopus databases. After duplicate record elimination, 1096 records were screened by reviewing the title and abstract, eliminating 702 further studies. For the 337 remaining records, full texts were reviewed, eliminating 315 records (unrelated content: n = 280; patient or control group consisting of <10 subjects: n = 22 [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]; full text unavailable: n = 1 [38]; non-extractable data: n = 1 [39]; data in median/quartiles: n = 4 [40,41,42,43]; identical study cohorts or study cohorts with significant overlap: n = 2 [8,44]; data on PSP/MSA cohorts without distinction of RS/MSA-P phenotypes: n = 5 [45,46,47,48,49]). Five studies were identified via manual search of related papers, references, and citing papers [13,50,51,52,53]. A total of 27 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis [10,11,12,13,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71] (Figure 1).

3.2. Basic Features Included in the Study

The basic characteristics of included studies are summarized in Table 1. Twenty-five studies included data on RS patients, five studies on MSA-P, and four studies on CBS. Eleven studies were retrospective, two studies were prospective, and the remaining had undefined study designs.
Mean age in RS cohorts varied from 62.5–74 years, mean disease duration from 12.8–79.2 months, and male-to-female ratio from 0.4–4.4. In total, 21 studies included data on midbrain area, 17 on pons area, 11 on M/Parea, 13 on MRPI 1, 3 on MRPI 2, and 4 on midbrain volume (Table 1, Supplementary Table S1).
Mean age in MSA-P cohorts varied from 59.7–70 years, mean disease duration from 24.7–93.8 months, and male-to-female ratio from 0.3–2.5. Four studies included data on midbrain and pons area, and three studies included data on M/Parea (Table 1, Supplementary Table S2).
None of the MRI markers had data on >2 studies for CBS cohorts. Mean age in CBS cohorts varied from 61.3–72.8 years, mean disease duration from 20.8–55.2 months, and male-to-female ratio from 0.1–1.7 (Table 1, Supplementary Table S3).

3.3. Quality Evaluation of Included Studies

Based on QUADAS-2 tool, the risk of bias regarding patient selection was unclear for 19 of the 27 studies included due to unspecified consecutive/random selection of patients in these studies. The risk of bias for the index test was unclear for 8 of the 27 studies and low for the remainder. The risk of bias for reference standard and flow/timing as well as concerns regarding applicability, was low for all included studies (Figure 2, Supplementary Table S1).

3.4. Results of Meta-Analysis

3.4.1. Richardson’s Syndrome

Twenty-one studies included data on midbrain area (Marea) in RS cohorts. A total of 1590 subjects (730 RS patients and 860 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean midbrain area ranged from 59 mm2 to 136.1 mm2. M/F ratio ranged from 0.4 to 4.4. Mean age ranged from 62.5 to 74 years, and mean disease duration ranged from 12.8 to 79.2 months. All included studies reported significantly reduced midbrain surfaces, with Cohen’s d ranging from −1.59 to −4.99. Overall Cohen’s d for Marea was −3.10 (−3.49 to −2.72; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 3, Supplementary Table S2).
Seventeen studies included data on pons area (Parea) in RS cohorts. A total of 1348 subjects (577 RS patients and 771 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean pons area ranged from 417 mm2 to 526 mm2. M/F ratio ranged from 0.6 to 4.4. Mean age ranged from 62.5 to 74 years, and mean disease duration ranged from 12.8 to 79.2 months. All included studies reported reduced pons surfaces, with Cohen’s d ranging from −0.11 to −1.24. Overall Cohen’s d for Parea was −0.80 (−0.97 to −0.63; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 3, Supplementary Table S2).
Eleven studies included data on midbrain-to-pons-area ratio (M/Parea) in RS cohorts. A total of 542 subjects (213 RS patients and 329 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean M/Parea ranged from 0.12 to 0.19. M/F ratio ranged from 0.6 to 4.4. Mean age ranged from 62.5 to 74 years, and mean disease duration ranged from 12.8 to 50.2 months. All included studies reported significantly reduced M/Parea, with Cohen’s d ranging from −1.86 to −4.51. Overall Cohen’s d for M/Parea was −3.02 (−3.45 to −2.58; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 3, Supplementary Table S2).
Thirteen studies included data on MRPI 1 in RS cohorts. A total of 1154 subjects (493 RS patients and 662 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean MRPI 1 ranged from 17.6 to 27. M/F ratio ranged from 0.6 to 2.8. Mean age ranged from 62.5 to 74 years, and mean disease duration ranged from 30.7 to 50.2 months. All included studies reported significantly increased MRPI 1, with Cohen’s d ranging from 1.35 to 6.94. Overall Cohen’s d for MRPI 1 was 2.78 (2.05 to 3.52; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 4, Supplementary Table S2).
Three studies included data on MRPI 2 in RS cohorts. A total of 229 subjects (127 RS patients and 102 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean MRPI 2 ranged from 17.6 to 27. M/F ratio ranged from 1.0 to 1.7. Mean age ranged from 70.4 to 74 years, and mean disease was 46.8 months. All included studies reported significantly increased MRPI 2, with Cohen’s d ranging from 1.87 to 3.11. Overall Cohen’s d for MRPI 2 was 2.48 (1.80 to 3.172; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 4, Supplementary Table S2).
Four studies included data on midbrain volume (Mvol) in RS cohorts. A total of 304 subjects (164 RS patients and 140 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean Mvol ranged from 17.6 to 27. M/F ratio ranged from 1.1 to 1.3. Mean age ranged from 65.1 to 72 years, and mean disease ranged from 38.4 to 55.2 months. All included studies reported significantly decreased Mvol, with Cohen’s d ranging from −1.51 to −2.74. Overall Cohen’s d for Mvol was −1.99 (−2.27 to −1.71; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 4, Supplementary Table S2).

3.4.2. MSA-P

Four studies included data on midbrain area (Marea) in MSA-P cohorts. A total of 275 subjects (126 MSA-P patients and 149 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean Marea ranged from 97.2 mm2 to 153.8 mm2. M/F ratio ranged from 0.3 to 1.7. Mean age ranged from 62.6 to 67 years and mean disease ranged from 24.7 to 93.8 months. All included studies reported significantly decreased Marea, with Cohen’s d ranging from −0.55 to −1.30. Overall Cohen’s d for Marea was −0.97 (−1.34 to −0.59; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 5, Supplementary Table S3).
Four studies included data on pons volume (Parea) in MSA-P cohorts. A total of 275 subjects (126 MSA-P patients and 149 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean Parea ranged from 381.6 mm2 to 459 mm2. M/F ratio ranged from 0.3 to 1.7. Mean age ranged from 62.6 to 67 years, and mean disease ranged from 24.7 to 93.8 months. All included studies reported significantly decreased Parea, with Cohen’s d ranging from −1.68 to −0.54. Overall Cohen’s d for Parea was −1.15 (−1.57 to −0.72; p < 0.001) (Table 1, Figure 5, Supplementary Table S3).
Three studies included data on midbrain-to-pons-area ratio (M/Parea) in MSA-P cohorts. A total of 142 subjects (66 MSA-P patients and 76 control subjects) were included in these studies. Mean M/Parea ranged from 0.24 to 0.27. M/F ratio ranged from 0.1 to 1.2. Mean age ranged from 62.6 to 67 years, and mean disease ranged from 24.7 to 93.8 months. Two of the included studies reported significantly increased M/Parea, whereas a single study reported a decreased M/Parea, with Cohen’s d ranging from −0.13 to 0.85. Overall Cohen’s d for M/Parea was 0.45 (−0.10 to 1.00; p = 0.11) (Table 1, Figure 5, Supplementary Table S3).

3.4.3. CBS

Meta-analysis could not be performed because none of the MRI markers had available data in >2 studies (Supplementary Table S4).

3.5. Heterogeneity

The Q statistic was used to assess the presence or absence of heterogeneity qualitatively, and the I2 statistic was applied to quantify between-study heterogeneity.
In the RS studies, midbrain area (Q statistic p-value < 0.001; I2 = 0.85), midbrain-to-pons-area ratio (Q statistic p-value < 0.001; I2 = 0.71), MRPI 1 (Q statistic p-value < 0.001; I2 = 0.95), and MRPI 2 (Q statistic p-value < 0.001; I2 = 0.72) exhibited high heterogeneity. Pons area exhibited moderate heterogeneity (Q statistic p-value = 0.02; I2 = 0.47), and midbrain volume did not exhibit heterogeneity (Q statistic p-value = 0.24; I2 = 0.00)
In the MSA-p studies, midbrain area had moderate heterogeneity (Q statistic p-value = 0.12; I2 = 0.49), whereas pons area (Q statistic p-value = 0.07; I2 = 0.58) and midbrain-to-pons-area ratio (Q statistic p-value = 0.08; I2 = 0.61) had high heterogeneity.

3.6. Publication Bias

Funnel plots indicated a degree of asymmetry in RS patients for midbrain area and MRPI 1, indicative of publication bias. The results of the Egger’s-regression-based test did not support the presence of publication bias for MRPI 1 in RS but confirmed publication bias for midbrain area in RS (β0 = −1.639; −3.034—0.244; p-value = 0.024) and pons area in RS (β0 = −1.045; −1.735—0.355; p-value = 0.006) (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

Progressive supranuclear palsy, multiple system atrophy, and corticobasal degeneration are rare neurodegenerative Parkinsonian disorders with characteristic neuropathological features which present with multiple diverse phenotypes. Richardson’s syndrome (RS) is the prototypical manifestation of PSP and is characterized by early postural instability and supranuclear gaze palsy [1]. MSA-Parkinsonism (MSA-P) manifests as predominant Parkinsonism combined with dysautonomia, cerebellar, and pyramidal signs [2]. Corticobasal syndrome (CBS) manifests with symptoms and signs of cortical (apraxia, cortical sensory deficits, alien limb phenomena) and basal ganglionic dysfunction (parkinsonism, myoclonus, dystonia) [3]. Despite the presence of these unique clinical features, patients with APD are commonly misdiagnosed, particularly early in their disease course as well as in oligosymptomatic or atypical/mixed presentations.
In an effort to improve a timely and accurate diagnosis of APD, multiple imaging markers have been introduced. These markers range from morphometric MRI markers—which are clinically applicable—to more elaborate, research-oriented markers, including diffusion, resting-state MRI, SPECT, and PET markers [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84].
Neuropathological studies have supported that PSP is characterized by preferential midbrain and SCP atrophy, whereas MSA (particularly MSA-C) is characterized by pontine and MCP atrophy. To this end, most morphometric MRI markers in APD have focused on midbrain, pons, as measured through midbrain and pons areas and volumes. Additionally, composite markers such as MRPI 1 and MRPI 2 have been introduced, which incorporate measurements of midbrain and pons surfaces as well as SCP and MCP widths.
Multiple MRI studies have focused on the planimetric and volumetric midbrain/pons characteristics of RS, MSA-P, and CBS. However, these studies exhibit differences in design, diagnostic criteria, patient characteristics/groups, and imaging markers applied. In order to systematically present data on these markers, we performed a systematic review of all studies on RS, MSA-P, and CBS which included at least one of the following imaging markers: midbrain area and/or volume, pons area and/or volume, midbrain-to-pons-area and/or volume ratio, and MRPI 1 and 2.
An initial conclusion of the present systematic review is that few studies have applied these MRI markers in MSA-P (n = 5) or CBS (n = 4). Meta-analysis could not be performed for any of the MRI markers in CBS because none of these markers had available data in >2 studies. For MSA-p, only three MRI markers (midbrain area, pons area and M/Parea) had available data on >2 studies and were thus available for meta-analysis. Based on Cohen’s d as a measure of effect size as measured by pons area, MSA-p patients present with predominant pontine atrophy (Cohen’s d = −1.15; p < 0.001). However, these patients also exhibit comparable midbrain atrophy (Cohen’s d = −0.97; p < 0.001), thus rendering the M/Parea an ineffective surrogate marker for MSA-P. Thus, pontine atrophy, as measured by pons surface in the midsagittal plane, is the most potent MRI marker for MSA-P.
Twenty-five studies included data on MRI markers in RS. Meta-analysis was performed for all MRI markers, except for pons volume and M/Pvol, due to lack of >2 studies with data. Midbrain area provided the greatest Cohen’s d value among MRI markers (Cohen’s d = −3.10; p < 0.001), followed by M/Parea (Cohen’s d = −3.02; p < 0.001), MRPI 1 (Cohen’s d = 2.78; p < 0.001) and MRPI 2 (Cohen’s d = 2.48; p < 0.001). The greater effect size of midbrain area compared to M/Parea, MRPI 1 and MPRI 2 could be attributed to the concomitant pontine atrophy in RS (as evidenced by pons area Cohen’s d = 0.80; p = 0.02). These data indicate that despite the introduction of composite MRI markers such as the MRPI, measurement of the midbrain surface remains the most effective MRI marker for PSP.
The level of evidence, based on the number of subjects included per analysis, varied between RS studies, with midbrain area (n = 1590), pons atrophy (n = 1348), and MRPI 1 (n = 1154) included in the largest samples. Meta-analysis for MSA-P studies included significantly smaller samples (n = 275) for midbrain and pons areas. Publication bias was present for midbrain area studies in RS, and heterogeneity among studies was high for multiple MRI markers.
There are certain limitations to this systematic review and meta-analysis. Initially, most studies included had positive results. We did not perform a systematic search of the grey literature, to search for negative relevant unpublished studies. However, publication bias based on funnel plots and Egger’s-regression-based test was minimal. Additionally, negative studies on pontine area in RS and on midbrain area, pons area, and M/Parea were published and included. Lastly, the effect size for most MRI markers in RS in the included studies was consistently high, rendering the possibility of negative relevant studies unlikely. Another limitation of this study was the inclusion of all relevant MRI studies with planimetric/volumetric brainstem data irrespective of the methodology used (i.e., planimetry methodology based on Oba et al. vs. Cossotini et al. [10,11]; inclusion or exclusion of midbrain tectum [59]; manual vs. automatic measurements [63]; 1.5 T vs. 3 T MRI [60]). The variability in these factors may have contributed to the heterogeneity of studies. However, relevant studies have supported excellent agreement between automated and manual measurements and between MRI scanners of different field strengths. Only two of the included studies had a prospective design, with most studies being either retrospective or undefined. Thus, the temporal pattern of atrophy based on MRI markers of this meta-analysis cannot be deduced. The studies included in this meta-analysis applied different MRI acquisition protocols with varied TR, TE, FOV, and slice thickness values (Supplementary Table S5). Differences in resulting planimetric or volumetric measurements due to these MRI acquisition protocol differences could not be tested due to the great variability between studies. Rarely, midline structural lesions, such as vascular malformations, tumors or traumatic lesions may result in phenotypes mimicking atypical Parkinsonism. All studies included in this meta-analysis excluded patients with structural lesions. Application of the MRI markers discussed in this review implies the absence of such lesions. Lastly, all included studies rely on the classification of patients based on established clinical diagnostic criteria, in lack of neuropathological confirmation, rendering misdiagnosis of patients possible.
Prospective longitudinal studies of large cohorts of RS, MSA-P, and CBS patients, with neuropathological confirmation, would be pivotal in elucidating the temporal and spatial patterns of brainstem structure atrophy and the optimal surrogate MRI markers for these rare diseases.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/neurolint16010001/s1, Supplementary Table S1: “Analytical presentation of study characteristics regarding the signaling questions, risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability for patient selection, Index Test, Reference Standard and Flow/Timing, based on the QUADAS Tool”; Supplementary Table S2: “Analytical data regarding the number of patients per study group, mean values and standard deviations of all available MRI markers in studies of Richardson patients included in the meta-analysis”; Supplementary Table S3: “Analytical data regarding the number of patients per study group, mean values and standard deviations of all available MRI markers in studies of MSA-P patients included in the meta-analysis”; Supplementary Table S4: “Analytical data regarding the number of patients per study group, mean values and standard deviations of all available MRI markers in studies of corticobasal syndrome patients included in the meta-analysis”; Supplementary Table S5: “MRI acquisition protocol per study”.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.-E.B., I.K., N.G. and V.C.C.; methodology: V.C.C.; formal analysis: V.C.C.; investigation: M.-E.B., I.K., N.G. and V.C.C.; data curation: M.-E.B., I.K., N.G. and V.C.C.; writing—original draft preparation: V.C.C.; writing—review and editing: M.-E.B., I.K. and N.G.; supervision, V.C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study design of this paper (systematic review and meta-analysis) does not require institutional review board approval.

Informed Consent Statement

This study did not include original data. The study design (systematic review and meta-analysis) does not require informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or supplementary material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hoglinger, G.U.; Respondek, G.; Stamelou, M.; Kurz, C.; Josephs, K.A.; Lang, A.E.; Mollenhauer, B.; Muller, U.; Nilsson, C.; Whitwell, J.L.; et al. Clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy: The movement disorder society criteria. Mov. Disord. 2017, 32, 853–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wenning, G.K.; Stankovic, I.; Vignatelli, L.; Fanciulli, A.; Calandra-Buonaura, G.; Seppi, K.; Palma, J.A.; Meissner, W.G.; Krismer, F.; Berg, D.; et al. The Movement Disorder Society Criteria for the Diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy. Mov. Disord. 2022, 37, 1131–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Armstrong, M.J.; Litvan, I.; Lang, A.E.; Bak, T.H.; Bhatia, K.P.; Borroni, B.; Boxer, A.L.; Dickson, D.W.; Grossman, M.; Hallett, M.; et al. Criteria for the diagnosis of corticobasal degeneration. Neurology 2013, 80, 496–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Respondek, G.; Roeber, S.; Kretzschmar, H.; Troakes, C.; Al-Sarraj, S.; Gelpi, E.; Gaig, C.; Chiu, W.Z.; van Swieten, J.C.; Oertel, W.H.; et al. Accuracy of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke/Society for Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and neuroprotection and natural history in Parkinson plus syndromes criteria for the diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy. Mov. Disord. 2013, 28, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Osaki, Y.; Ben-Shlomo, Y.; Lees, A.J.; Wenning, G.K.; Quinn, N.P. A validation exercise on the new consensus criteria for multiple system atrophy. Mov. Disord. 2009, 24, 2272–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Litvan, I.; Hauw, J.J.; Bartko, J.J.; Lantos, P.L.; Daniel, S.E.; Horoupian, D.S.; McKee, A.; Dickson, D.; Bancher, C.; Tabaton, M.; et al. Validity and reliability of the preliminary NINDS neuropathologic criteria for progressive supranuclear palsy and related disorders. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 1996, 55, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Trojanowski, J.Q.; Revesz, T.; Neuropathology Working Group on MSA. Proposed neuropathological criteria for the post mortem diagnosis of multiple system atrophy. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol. 2007, 33, 615–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Constantinides, V.C.; Paraskevas, G.P.; Velonakis, G.; Toulas, P.; Stamboulis, E.; Kapaki, E. MRI Planimetry and Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index in the Differential Diagnosis of Patients with Parkinsonism. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2018, 39, 1047–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Constantinides, V.C.; Paraskevas, G.P.; Stamboulis, E.; Kapaki, E. Simple linear brainstem MRI measurements in the differential diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy from the parkinsonian variant of multiple system atrophy. Neurol. Sci. 2018, 39, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oba, H.; Yagishita, A.; Terada, H.; Barkovich, A.J.; Kutomi, K.; Yamauchi, T.; Furui, S.; Shimizu, T.; Uchigata, M.; Matsumura, K.; et al. New and reliable MRI diagnosis for progressive supranuclear palsy. Neurology 2005, 64, 2050–2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cosottini, M.; Ceravolo, R.; Faggioni, L.; Lazzarotti, G.; Michelassi, M.C.; Bonuccelli, U.; Murri, L.; Bartolozzi, C. Assessment of midbrain atrophy in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy with routine magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2007, 116, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Morelli, M.; Arabia, G.; Salsone, M.; Novellino, F.; Giofre, L.; Paletta, R.; Messina, D.; Nicoletti, G.; Condino, F.; Gallo, O.; et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance parkinsonism index for differentiation of progressive supranuclear palsy from probable or possible Parkinson disease. Mov. Disord. 2011, 26, 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Quattrone, A.; Morelli, M.; Nigro, S.; Quattrone, A.; Vescio, B.; Arabia, G.; Nicoletti, G.; Nistico, R.; Salsone, M.; Novellino, F.; et al. A new MR imaging index for differentiation of progressive supranuclear palsy-parkinsonism from Parkinson’s disease. Park. Relat. Disord. 2018, 54, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wood, J.A. Methodology for Dealing with Duplicate Study Effects in a Meta-Analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 2008, 11, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sawilowsky, S.S. New Effect Size Rules of Thumb. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2009, 8, 597–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Whiting, P.F.; Rutjes, A.W.; Westwood, M.E.; Mallett, S.; Deeks, J.J.; Reitsma, J.B.; Leeflang, M.M.; Sterne, J.A.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Quadas-Group. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kato, N.; Arai, K.; Hattori, T. Study of the rostral midbrain atrophy in progressive supranuclear palsy. J. Neurol. Sci. 2003, 210, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gama, R.L.; Tavora, D.F.; Bomfim, R.C.; Silva, C.E.; Bruin, V.M.; Bruin, P.F. Morphometry MRI in the differential diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes. Arq. Neuropsiquiatr. 2010, 68, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hussl, A.; Mahlknecht, P.; Scherfler, C.; Esterhammer, R.; Schocke, M.; Poewe, W.; Seppi, K. Diagnostic accuracy of the magnetic resonance Parkinsonism index and the midbrain-to-pontine area ratio to differentiate progressive supranuclear palsy from Parkinson’s disease and the Parkinson variant of multiple system atrophy. Mov. Disord. 2010, 25, 2444–2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, Y.H.; Ma, H.I.; Kim, Y.J. Utility of the Midbrain Tegmentum Diameter in the Differential Diagnosis of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy from Idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease. J. Clin. Neurol. 2015, 11, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Mangesius, S.; Hussl, A.; Krismer, F.; Mahlknecht, P.; Reiter, E.; Tagwercher, S.; Djamshidian, A.; Schocke, M.; Esterhammer, R.; Wenning, G.; et al. MR planimetry in neurodegenerative parkinsonism yields high diagnostic accuracy for PSP. Park. Relat. Disord. 2018, 46, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Eraslan, C.; Acarer, A.; Guneyli, S.; Akyuz, E.; Aydin, E.; Colakoglu, Z.; Kitis, O.; Calli, M.C. MRI evaluation of progressive supranuclear palsy: Differentiation from Parkinson’s disease and multiple system atrophy. Neurol. Res. 2019, 41, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ghourchian, S.; Mousavi, A.; Zamani, B.; Shahidi, G.; Rohani, M. Midbrain area for differentiating Parkinson’s disease from progressive supranuclear palsy. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2019, 183, 105383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Archer, D.B.; Mitchell, T.; Burciu, R.G.; Yang, J.; Nigro, S.; Quattrone, A.; Quattrone, A.; Jeromin, A.; McFarland, N.R.; Okun, M.S.; et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Neurofilament Light in the Differentiation of Parkinsonism. Mov. Disord. 2020, 35, 1388–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cooperrider, J.; Bluett, B.; Jones, S.E. Methods and utility of quantitative brainstem measurements in progressive supranuclear palsy versus Parkinson’s disease in a routine clinical setting. Clin. Park. Relat. Disord. 2020, 3, 100033. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Cui, S.S.; Ling, H.W.; Du, J.J.; Lin, Y.Q.; Pan, J.; Zhou, H.Y.; Wang, G.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, Q.; Liu, J.; et al. Midbrain/pons area ratio and clinical features predict the prognosis of progressive Supranuclear palsy. BMC Neurol. 2020, 20, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Quattrone, A.; e Morelli, M.; Quattrone, A.; Vescio, B.; Nigro, S.; Arabia, G.; Nistico, R.; Novellino, F.; Salsone, M.; Arcuri, P.; et al. Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index for evaluating disease progression rate in progressive supranuclear palsy: A longitudinal 2-year study. Park. Relat. Disord. 2020, 72, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sakuramoto, H.; Fujita, H.; Suzuki, K.; Matsubara, T.; Watanabe, Y.; Hamaguchi, M.; Hirata, K. Combination of midbrain-to-pontine ratio and cardiac MIBG scintigraphy to differentiate Parkinson’s disease from multiple system atrophy and progressive supranuclear palsy. Clin. Park. Relat. Disord. 2020, 2, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sjostrom, H.; Granberg, T.; Hashim, F.; Westman, E.; Svenningsson, P. Automated brainstem volumetry can aid in the diagnostics of parkinsonian disorders. Park. Relat. Disord. 2020, 79, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Whitwell, J.L.; Tosakulwong, N.; Botha, H.; Ali, F.; Clark, H.M.; Duffy, J.R.; Utianski, R.L.; Stevens, C.A.; Weigand, S.D.; Schwarz, C.G.; et al. Brain volume and flortaucipir analysis of progressive supranuclear palsy clinical variants. Neuroimage Clin. 2020, 25, 102152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Heim, B.; Mangesius, S.; Krismer, F.; Wenning, G.K.; Hussl, A.; Scherfler, C.; Gizewski, E.R.; Schocke, M.; Esterhammer, R.; Quattrone, A.; et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MR planimetry in clinically unclassifiable parkinsonism. Park. Relat. Disord. 2021, 82, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Luca, A.; Nicoletti, A.; Donzuso, G.; Terravecchia, C.; Cicero, C.E.; D′Agate, C.; Rascuna, C.; Manna, R.; Mostile, G.; Zappia, M. Phonemic Verbal Fluency and Midbrain Atrophy in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2021, 80, 1669–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Alster, P.; Nieciecki, M.; Migda, B.; Kutylowski, M.; Madetko, N.; Duszynska-Was, K.; Charzynska, I.; Koziorowski, D.; Krolicki, L.; Friedman, A. The Strengths and Obstacles in the Differential Diagnosis of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy-Parkinsonism Predominant (PSP-P) and Multiple System Atrophy (MSA) Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Perfusion Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT). Diagnostics 2022, 12, 385. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Illan-Gala, I.; Nigro, S.; VandeVrede, L.; Falgas, N.; Heuer, H.W.; Painous, C.; Compta, Y.; Marti, M.J.; Montal, V.; Pagonabarraga, J.; et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measures of Brain Atrophy Across the Spectrum of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Degeneration. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e229588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fu, M.H.; Huang, C.C.; Wu, K.L.H.; Chen, Y.F.; Kung, Y.C.; Lee, C.C.; Liu, J.S.; Lan, M.Y.; Chang, Y.Y. Higher prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus-like MRI features in progressive supranuclear palsy: An imaging reminder of atypical parkinsonism. Brain Behav. 2023, 13, e2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Muller, S.J.; Khadhraoui, E.; Hansen, N.; Jamous, A.; Langer, P.; Wiltfang, J.; Riedel, C.H.; Bouter, C.; van Riesen, C.; Maass, F.; et al. Brainstem atrophy in dementia with Lewy bodies compared with progressive supranuclear palsy and Parkinson’s disease on MRI. BMC Neurol. 2023, 23, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, Z.; Mo, J.; Zhang, J.; Feng, T.; Zhang, K. Surface-Based Neuroimaging Pattern of Multiple System Atrophy. Acad. Radiol. 2023, 30, 2999–3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wattjes, M.P.; Huppertz, H.J.; Mahmoudi, N.; Stöcklein, S.; Rogozinski, S.; Wegner, F.; Klietz, M.; Apostolova, I.; Levin, J.; Katzdobler, S.; et al. Brain MRI in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy with Richardson’s Syndrome and Variant Phenotypes. Mov. Disord. 2023, 38, 1891–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Quattrone, A.; Nicoletti, G.; Messina, D.; Fera, F.; Condino, F.; Pugliese, P.; Lanza, P.; Barone, P.; Morgante, L.; Zappia, M.; et al. MR imaging index for differentiation of progressive supranuclear palsy from Parkinson disease and the Parkinson variant of multiple system atrophy. Radiology 2008, 246, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oktay, C.; Özkaynak, S.S.; Eseroglu, E.; Karaali, K. Contribution of the Mesencephalon Indices to Differential Diagnosis of Parkinsonian Disorders. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2020, 71, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Picillo, M.; Tepedino, M.F.; Abate, F.; Erro, R.; Ponticorvo, S.; Tartaglione, S.; Volpe, G.; Frosini, D.; Cecchi, P.; Cosottini, M.; et al. Midbrain MRI assessments in progressive supranuclear palsy subtypes. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2020, 91, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Grijalva, R.M.; Pham, N.T.T.; Huang, Q.; Martin, P.R.; Ali, F.; Clark, H.M.; Duffy, J.R.; Utianski, R.L.; Botha, H.; Machulda, M.M.; et al. Brainstem Biomarkers of Clinical Variant and Pathology in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy. Mov. Disord. 2022, 37, 702–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Moller, L.; Kassubek, J.; Sudmeyer, M.; Hilker, R.; Hattingen, E.; Egger, K.; Amtage, F.; Pinkhardt, E.H.; Respondek, G.; Stamelou, M.; et al. Manual MRI morphometry in Parkinsonian syndromes. Mov. Disord. 2017, 32, 778–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Quattrone, A.; Sarica, A.; La Torre, D.; Morelli, M.; Vescio, B.; Nigro, S.; Barbagallo, G.; Nistico, R.; Salsone, M.; Arcuri, P.P.; et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Biomarkers Distinguish Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus From Progressive Supranuclear Palsy. Mov. Disord. 2020, 35, 1406–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ugga, L.; Cuocolo, R.; Cocozza, S.; Pontillo, G.; Elefante, A.; Quarantelli, M.; Vicidomini, C.; De Pandis, M.F.; De Michele, G.; D′Amico, A.; et al. Magnetic resonance parkinsonism indices and interpeduncular angle in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and progressive supranuclear palsy. Neuroradiology 2020, 62, 1657–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Janarthanan, V.; Nadhamuni, K.; Rajakumar, S.; Padmanaban, E.; Amirthalingam, U.; Achantani, Y. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index in Differentiating Progressive Supranuclear Palsy from Parkinson’s Disease among South Indian Population: A Retrospective Case Control Study. Indian, J. Radiol. Imaging 2021, 31, 596–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Quattrone, A.; Bianco, M.G.; Antonini, A.; Vaillancourt, D.E.; Seppi, K.; Ceravolo, R.; Strafella, A.P.; Tedeschi, G.; Tessitore, A.; Cilia, R.; et al. Development and Validation of Automated Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index 2.0 to Distinguish Progressive Supranuclear Palsy-Parkinsonism from Parkinson’s Disease. Mov. Disord. 2022, 37, 1272–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Oliveira Hauer, K.; Pawlik, D.; Leuzy, A.; Janelidze, S.; Hall, S.; Hansson, O.; Smith, R. Performance of [18F]RO948 PET, MRI and CSF neurofilament light in the differential diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy. Park. Relat. Disord. 2023, 106, 105226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Looi, J.C.; e Macfarlane, M.D.; Walterfang, M.; Styner, M.; Velakoulis, D.; Latt, J.; van Westen, D.; Nilsson, C. Morphometric analysis of subcortical structures in progressive supranuclear palsy: In vivo evidence of neostriatal and mesencephalic atrophy. Psychiatry Res. 2011, 194, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pasha, S.; Yadav, R.; Ganeshan, M.; Saini, J.; Gupta, A.; Sandhya, M.; Pal, P. Correlation between qualitative balance indices, dynamic posturography and structural brain imaging in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy and its subtypes. Neurol. India 2016, 64, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Jabbari, E.; Holland, N.; Chelban, V.; Jones, P.S.; Lamb, R.; Rawlinson, C.; Guo, T.; Costantini, A.A.; Tan, M.M.X.; Heslegrave, A.J.; et al. Diagnosis Across the Spectrum of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome. JAMA Neurol. 2020, 77, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Madetko, N.; Alster, P.; Kutylowski, M.; Migda, B.; Nieciecki, M.; Koziorowski, D.; Krolicki, L. Is MRPI 2.0 More Useful than MRPI and M/P Ratio in Differential Diagnosis of PSP-P with Other Atypical Parkinsonisms? J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Groschel, K.; Kastrup, A.; Litvan, I.; Schulz, J.B. Penguins and hummingbirds: Midbrain atrophy in progressive supranuclear palsy. Neurology 2006, 66, 949–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Paviour, D.C.; Price, S.L.; Jahanshahi, M.; Lees, A.J.; Fox, N.C. Regional brain volumes distinguish PSP, MSA-P, and PD: MRI-based clinico-radiological correlations. Mov. Disord. 2006, 21, 989–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Borroni, B.; Malinverno, M.; Gardoni, F.; Grassi, M.; Parnetti, L.; Agosti, C.; Alberici, A.; Premi, E.; Bonuccelli, U.; Gasparotti, R.; et al. A combination of CSF tau ratio and midsaggital midbrain-to-pons atrophy for the early diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2010, 22, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Longoni, G.; Agosta, F.; Kostic, V.S.; Stojkovic, T.; Pagani, E.; Stosic-Opincal, T.; Filippi, M. MRI measurements of brainstem structures in patients with Richardson’s syndrome, progressive supranuclear palsy-parkinsonism, and Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2011, 26, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Morelli, M.; Arabia, G.; Messina, D.; Vescio, B.; Salsone, M.; Chiriaco, C.; Perrotta, P.; Rocca, F.; Cascini, G.L.; Barbagallo, G.; et al. Effect of aging on magnetic resonance measures differentiating progressive supranuclear palsy from Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2014, 29, 488–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Huppertz, H.J.; Moller, L.; Sudmeyer, M.; Hilker, R.; Hattingen, E.; Egger, K.; Amtage, F.; Respondek, G.; Stamelou, M.; Schnitzler, A.; et al. Differentiation of neurodegenerative parkinsonian syndromes by volumetric magnetic resonance imaging analysis and support vector machine classification. Mov. Disord. 2016, 31, 1506–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mangesius, S.; Krismer, F.; Gizewski, E.R.; Muller, C.; Hussl, A.; Schocke, M.; Scherfler, C.; Poewe, W.; Seppi, K. 1.5 Versus 3 tesla magnetic resonance planimetry in neurodegenerative parkinsonism. Mov. Disord. 2016, 31, 1925–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sankhla, C.S.; Patil, K.B.; Sawant, N.; Gupta, S. Diagnostic accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index in differentiating progressive supranuclear palsy from Parkinson’s disease and controls in Indian patients. Neurol. India 2016, 64, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Nigro, S.; Morelli, M.; Arabia, G.; Nistico, R.; Novellino, F.; Salsone, M.; Rocca, F.; Quattrone, A. Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index and midbrain to pons ratio: Which index better distinguishes Progressive Supranuclear Palsy patients with a low degree of diagnostic certainty from patients with Parkinson Disease? Park. Relat. Disord. 2017, 41, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Nigro, S.; Arabia, G.; Antonini, A.; Weis, L.; Marcante, A.; Tessitore, A.; Cirillo, M.; Tedeschi, G.; Zanigni, S.; Calandra-Buonaura, G.; et al. Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index: Diagnostic accuracy of a fully automated algorithm in comparison with the manual measurement in a large Italian multicentre study in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 2665–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Nizamani, W.M.; Mubarak, F.; Barakzai, M.D.; Ahmed, M.S. Role of magnetic resonance planimetry and magnetic resonance parkinsonism index in discriminating Parkinson’s disease and progressive supranuclear palsy: A retrospective study based on 1.5 and 3 T MRI. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2017, 10, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Silsby, M.; Tweedie-Cullen, R.Y.; Murray, C.R.; Halliday, G.M.; Hodges, J.R.; Burrell, J.R. The midbrain-to-pons ratio distinguishes progressive supranuclear palsy from non-fluent primary progressive aphasias. Eur. J. Neurol. 2017, 24, 956–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ahn, J.H.; Kim, M.; Kim, J.S.; Youn, J.; Jang, W.; Oh, E.; Lee, P.H.; Koh, S.B.; Ahn, T.B.; Cho, J.W. Midbrain atrophy in patients with presymptomatic progressive supranuclear palsy-Richardson’s syndrome. Park. Relat. Disord. 2019, 66, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Krismer, F.; Seppi, K.; Gobel, G.; Steiger, R.; Zucal, I.; Boesch, S.; Gizewski, E.R.; Wenning, G.K.; Poewe, W.; Scherfler, C. Morphometric MRI profiles of multiple system atrophy variants and implications for differential diagnosis. Mov. Disord. 2019, 34, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Quattrone, A.; Caligiuri, M.E.; Morelli, M.; Nigro, S.; Vescio, B.; Arabia, G.; Nicoletti, G.; Nistico, R.; Salsone, M.; Novellino, F.; et al. Imaging counterpart of postural instability and vertical ocular dysfunction in patients with PSP: A multimodal MRI study. Park. Relat. Disord. 2019, 63, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nigro, S.; Antonini, A.; Vaillancourt, D.E.; Seppi, K.; Ceravolo, R.; Strafella, A.P.; Augimeri, A.; Quattrone, A.; Morelli, M.; Weis, L.; et al. Automated MRI Classification in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy: A Large International Cohort Study. Mov. Disord. 2020, 35, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Virhammar, J.; Blohme, H.; Nyholm, D.; Georgiopoulos, C.; Fallmar, D. Midbrain area and the hummingbird sign from brain MRI in progressive supranuclear palsy and idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J. Neuroimaging 2022, 32, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Quattrone, A.; Sarica, A.; Buonocore, J.; Morelli, M.; Bianco, M.G.; Calomino, C.; Aracri, F.; De Maria, M.; Vescio, B.; Vaccaro, M.G.; et al. Differentiating between common PSP phenotypes using structural MRI: A machine learning study. J. Neurol. 2023, 270, 5502–5515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Constantinides, V.C.; Paraskevas, G.P.; Velonakis, G.; Toulas, P.; Karavasilis, E.; Stefanis, L.; Kapaki, E. The “hypointense substantia nigra” sign. A novel MRI marker of progressive supranuclear palsy. J. Neurol. Sci. 2021, 421, 117286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Constantinides, V.C.; Souvatzoglou, M.; Paraskevas, G.P.; Chalioti, M.; Boufidou, F.; Stefanis, L.; Kapaki, E. Dopamine transporter SPECT imaging in corticobasal syndrome: A peak into the underlying pathology? Acta Neurol. Scand. 2022, 145, 762–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Constantinides, V.C.; Souvatzoglou, M.; Paraskevas, G.P.; Chalioti, M.; Stefanis, L.; Kapaki, E. Dopamine transporter SPECT imaging in Parkinson’s disease and atypical Parkinsonism: A study of 137 patients. Neurol. Sci. 2023, 44, 1613–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Whitwell, J.L.; Lowe, V.J.; Tosakulwong, N.; Weigand, S.D.; Senjem, M.L.; Schwarz, C.G.; Spychalla, A.J.; Petersen, R.C.; Jack, C.R., Jr.; Josephs, K.A. [18F]AV-1451 tau positron emission tomography in progressive supranuclear palsy. Mov. Disord. 2017, 32, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kikuchi, A.; Okamura, N.; Hasegawa, T.; Harada, R.; Watanuki, S.; Funaki, Y.; Hiraoka, K.; Baba, T.; Sugeno, N.; Oshima, R.; et al. In vivo visualization of tau deposits in corticobasal syndrome by 18F-THK5351 PET. Neurology 2016, 87, 2309–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kepe, V.; Bordelon, Y.; Boxer, A.; Huang, S.C.; Liu, J.; Thiede, F.C.; Mazziotta, J.C.; Mendez, M.F.; Donoghue, N.; Small, G.W.; et al. PET imaging of neuropathology in tauopathies: Progressive supranuclear palsy. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2013, 36, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Nakano, Y.; Shimada, H.; Shinotoh, H.; Hirano, S.; Tagai, K.; Sano, Y.; Yamamoto, Y.; Endo, H.; Matsuoka, K.; Takahata, K.; et al. PET-based classification of corticobasal syndrome. Park. Relat. Disord. 2022, 98, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Whitwell, J.L.; Schwarz, C.G.; Reid, R.I.; Kantarci, K.; Jack, C.R., Jr.; Josephs, K.A. Diffusion tensor imaging comparison of progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndromes. Park. Relat. Disord. 2014, 20, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Upadhyay, N.; Suppa, A.; Piattella, M.C.; Di Stasio, F.; Petsas, N.; Colonnese, C.; Colosimo, C.; Berardelli, A.; Pantano, P. Gray and white matter structural changes in corticobasal syndrome. Neurobiol. Aging 2016, 37, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Upadhyay, N.; Suppa, A.; Piattella, M.C.; Bologna, M.; Di Stasio, F.; Formica, A.; Tona, F.; Colosimo, C.; Berardelli, A.; Pantano, P. MRI gray and white matter measures in progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome. J. Neurol. 2016, 263, 2022–2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Nicoletti, G.; Tonon, C.; Lodi, R.; Condino, F.; Manners, D.; Malucelli, E.; Morelli, M.; Novellino, F.; Paglionico, S.; Lanza, P.; et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of the superior cerebellar peduncle differentiates progressive supranuclear palsy from Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 2370–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Pirker, W.; Asenbaum, S.; Bencsits, G.; Prayer, D.; Gerschlager, W.; Deecke, L.; Brucke, T. [123I]beta-CIT SPECT in multiple system atrophy, progressive supranuclear palsy, and corticobasal degeneration. Mov. Disord. 2000, 15, 1158–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Plotkin, M.; Amthauer, H.; Klaffke, S.; Kuhn, A.; Ludemann, L.; Arnold, G.; Wernecke, K.D.; Kupsch, A.; Felix, R.; Venz, S.; et al. Combined 123I-FP-CIT and 123I-IBZM SPECT for the diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes: Study on 72 patients. J. Neural. Transm. 2005, 112, 677–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Neurolint 16 00001 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of study selection according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria.
Figure 1. Flow chart of study selection according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria.
Neurolint 16 00001 g001
Neurolint 16 00001 g002
Figure 2. (a) Risk of bias and (b) concerns regarding the applicability of studies for patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow/timing based on the QUADAS-2 tool.
Figure 2. (a) Risk of bias and (b) concerns regarding the applicability of studies for patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow/timing based on the QUADAS-2 tool.
Neurolint 16 00001 g002
Neurolint 16 00001 g003
Figure 3. Forrest plots of effect size (as measured according to standardized mean difference-Cohen’s d) of studies on Richardson’s syndrome (RS) patients compared to control subjects for (a) midbrain area; (b) pons area; (c) midbrain-to-pons-area ratio. [9,10,11,12,50,51,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70].
Figure 3. Forrest plots of effect size (as measured according to standardized mean difference-Cohen’s d) of studies on Richardson’s syndrome (RS) patients compared to control subjects for (a) midbrain area; (b) pons area; (c) midbrain-to-pons-area ratio. [9,10,11,12,50,51,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70].
Neurolint 16 00001 g003
Neurolint 16 00001 g004
Figure 4. Forrest plots of effect size (as measured by standardized mean difference—Cohen’s d) of studies on Richardson’s syndrome patients compared to control subjects for: (a) MRPI 1; (b) MRPI 2; (c) midbrain volume. [9,11,12,13,52,53,55,57,58,59,61,62,63,65,68,69,71].
Figure 4. Forrest plots of effect size (as measured by standardized mean difference—Cohen’s d) of studies on Richardson’s syndrome patients compared to control subjects for: (a) MRPI 1; (b) MRPI 2; (c) midbrain volume. [9,11,12,13,52,53,55,57,58,59,61,62,63,65,68,69,71].
Neurolint 16 00001 g004
Neurolint 16 00001 g005
Figure 5. Forrest plots of effect size (as measured by standardized mean difference—Cohen’s d) of studies on MSA-P patients compared to control subjects for: (a) midbrain area; (b) pons area; (c) midbrain-to-pons-area ratio. [10,53,59,60].
Figure 5. Forrest plots of effect size (as measured by standardized mean difference—Cohen’s d) of studies on MSA-P patients compared to control subjects for: (a) midbrain area; (b) pons area; (c) midbrain-to-pons-area ratio. [10,53,59,60].
Neurolint 16 00001 g005
Neurolint 16 00001 g006
Figure 6. Funnel plots to visualize possible publication bias for: (a) midbrain area in RS; (b) pons area in RS; (c) M/Parea in RS; (d) MRPI 1 in RS; (e) MRPI 2 in RS; (f) midbrain volume in RS; (g) midbrain area in MSA-P; (h) pons area in MSA-P. A degree of asymmetry is evident for midbrain area in RS (a) and MRPI in RS (d). [9,10,11,12,13,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,68,69,70,71].
Figure 6. Funnel plots to visualize possible publication bias for: (a) midbrain area in RS; (b) pons area in RS; (c) M/Parea in RS; (d) MRPI 1 in RS; (e) MRPI 2 in RS; (f) midbrain volume in RS; (g) midbrain area in MSA-P; (h) pons area in MSA-P. A degree of asymmetry is evident for midbrain area in RS (a) and MRPI in RS (d). [9,10,11,12,13,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,68,69,70,71].
Neurolint 16 00001 g006
Table 1. Data regarding study design (Pr: prospective; Ret: retrospective; NC: not clarified), period of recruitment, male to female ratio, mean age (years), mean disease duration (months), and main findings of all studies included in the meta-analysis. NA: not available; dur: duration; ctrls: control subjects.
Table 1. Data regarding study design (Pr: prospective; Ret: retrospective; NC: not clarified), period of recruitment, male to female ratio, mean age (years), mean disease duration (months), and main findings of all studies included in the meta-analysis. NA: not available; dur: duration; ctrls: control subjects.
Study
ID		Study DesignPeriod of Recruitment Main
Findings
PSP MSA CBS
m/fagedurdatam/fagedurdatam/fagedurdata
1Oba, 2005 [10]Pr1999–20031.67133.6Marea; Parea; M/Parea0.36793.8Marea; Parea; M/Parea (-)M/Parea differentiated RS from MSA-P
2Groschel, 2006 [54]Pr1997–19991.565.743.2Marea (-)0.866.455.2MareaDecreased Marea and M/Parea values in RS vs. ctrls
3Paviour, 2006 [55]NCNA 65.155.2Mvol; Pvol 62.464.8(-) (-)Mvol 30% reduced in RS vs. ctrls
4Cosottini, 2007 [11]NCNA1.172 Marea; Parea; M/Parea; Mvol2.570 (-) (-)Reduced Marea, M/Parea, Mvol in RS vs. ctrls
5Borroni, 2010 [56]NC2001–20071.271.937.2M/Parea (-)1.761.320.8M/PareaM/Parea decreased in RS vs. CBS, ctrls
6Longoni, 2011 [57]Ret1998–20082.362.545.6Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)MRPI 94% accuracy for RS vs. ctrls
7Looi, 2011 [50]NCNA1.167.8 Marea; Parea; M/Parea (-) (-)Marea differentiates RS vs. ctrls
8Morelli, 2011 [12]NCNA2.870.342.8Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)MRPI superior to M.Parea in RS vs.ctrls
9Morelli, 2014 [58]NCNA2.16950.2Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)MRPI superior to M.Parea in RS vs.ctrls
10Huppertz, 2016 [59]NC2009–20131.36938.4Marea; Parea;
Mvol; Pvol		1.763.343.2Marea; Parea; Mvol; Pvol (-)Mvol and Marea decreased in RS
11Mangesius, 2016 [60]NCNA (-)1.263.224.7Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-)M/Parea and MRPI comparable accuracy for RS
12Pasha, 2016 [51]NCNA2.462.554Marea; Parea (-) (-)Marea and M/Parea differentiate RS vs. ctrls
13Sankhla, 2016 [61]NC2012–20142.266.130.7Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)Marea, M/Parea, MRPI differentiate RS vs. ctrls
14Nigro, 2017a [62]NCNA0.768.848.6Marea; Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)MRPI >90% sens/ spec for RS vs. ctrls
15Nigro, 2017b [63]NC2010–20162.071.045.6Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)M/Parea, MRPI 100% sens/spec for RS vs. ctrls
16Nizamani, 2017 [64]Ret2006–20151.366.779.2Marea; Parea (-) (-)MRPI 100% sens/spec for RS vs. ctrls
17Silsby, 2017 [65]NCNA0.671.1 Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)M/Parea and MRPI comparable AUCs in RS vs. ctrls
18Quattrone, 2018 [13]Ret2009–20171.270.446.8MRPI 1,2 (-) (-)MRPI 1 and 2 identical AUCs in RS vs. ctrls
19Ahn, 2019 [66]Ret2010–20174.47312.8Marea; Parea; M/Parea (-) (-)M/P ratio higher AUC compared to Marea in RS vs. vtrls
20Krismer, 2019 [67]RetNA (-)159.732.4Mvol; Pvol (-)Pvol did not differentiate MSA-P from ctrls
21Quattrone, 2019 [68]Ret2009–20171.270.948Marea (-) (-)Marea decreased in RS vs. ctrls
22Constantinides, 2019 [9]Ret2012–20191.365.632.4Marea; M/Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)Marea, M/Parea, MRPI decreased in RS vs. ctrls
23Jabbari, 2020 [52]Ret2015––2018 Mvol (-) Mvol; PvolMvol decreased in RS vs. ctrls
24Nigro, 2020 [69]Ret2010–20171.070.244.4Marea; Parea; MRPI 1 (-) (-)Automated MRPI produces high diagnostic accuracy for RS
25Madetko, 2022 [53]NC2017–20191.774 Marea; Parea; M/Parea;
MRPI 1,2		0.662.6 Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1,20.172.8 Marea; Parea; M/Parea; MRPI 1,2Marea, M/Parea, MRPI 1,2 were decreased in RS vs. ctrls and to a lesser extent in CBS vs. ctrls
26Virhammar, 2021 [70]RetNA0.4 Marea (-) (-)Marea decreased in RS vs. ctrls
27Quattrone, 2023 [71]Ret2012–20201.070.746.8MRPI 1,2 (-) (-)MRPI 1,2 produce AUC>0.975 in RS vs. ctrls
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brinia, M.-E.; Kapsali, I.; Giagkou, N.; Constantinides, V.C. Planimetric and Volumetric Brainstem MRI Markers in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple System Atrophy, and Corticobasal Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurol. Int. 2024, 16, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint16010001

AMA Style

Brinia M-E, Kapsali I, Giagkou N, Constantinides VC. Planimetric and Volumetric Brainstem MRI Markers in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple System Atrophy, and Corticobasal Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurology International. 2024; 16(1):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint16010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brinia, Maria-Evgenia, Ioanna Kapsali, Nikolaos Giagkou, and Vasilios C. Constantinides. 2024. "Planimetric and Volumetric Brainstem MRI Markers in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple System Atrophy, and Corticobasal Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Neurology International 16, no. 1: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint16010001

APA Style

Brinia, M. -E., Kapsali, I., Giagkou, N., & Constantinides, V. C. (2024). Planimetric and Volumetric Brainstem MRI Markers in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple System Atrophy, and Corticobasal Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurology International, 16(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint16010001

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop