BackgroundHippocampal atrophy is a well-known feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but sensitivity and specificity of hippocampal volumetry are limited. Neuropathological studies have shown that hippocampal subfields are differentially vulnerable to AD; hippocampal subfield volumetry may thus prove to be more accurate than global hippocampal volumetry to detect AD.MethodsCA1, subiculum and other subfields were manually delineated from 40 healthy controls, 18 AD, 17 amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI), and 8 semantic dementia (SD) patients using a previously developed high resolution MRI procedure. Non-parametric group comparisons and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted. Complementary analyses were conducted to evaluate differences of hemispheric asymmetry and anterior-predominance between AD and SD patients and to distinguish aMCI patients with or without β-amyloid deposition as assessed by Florbetapir-TEP.ResultsGlobal hippocampi were atrophied in all three patient groups and volume decreases were maximal in the CA1 subfield (22% loss in aMCI, 27% in both AD and SD; all p < 0.001). In aMCI, CA1 volumetry was more accurate than global hippocampal measurement to distinguish patients from controls (areas under the ROC curve = 0.88 and 0.76, respectively; p = 0.05) and preliminary analyses suggest that it was independent from the presence of β-amyloid deposition. In patients with SD, whereas the degree of CA1 and subiculum atrophy was similar to that found in AD patients, hemispheric and anterior–posterior asymmetry were significantly more marked than in AD with greater involvement of the left and anterior hippocampal subfields.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that CA1 measurement is more sensitive than global hippocampal volumetry to detect structural changes at the pre-dementia stage, although the predominance of CA1 atrophy does not appear to be specific to AD pathophysiological processes.

Neuroimaging biomarkers, namely hippocampal volume loss, temporoparietal hypometabolism, and neocortical ␤-amyloid (A␤) deposition, are included in the recent research criteria for preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, how to use these biomarkers is still being debated, especially regarding their sequence. Our aim was to characterize the cognitive and brain profiles of elders classified as positive or negative for each biomarker to further our understanding of their use in the preclinical diagnosis of AD. Fifty-four cognitively normal individuals (age ϭ 65.8 Ϯ 8.3 years) underwent neuropsychological tests (structural MRI, FDG-PET, and Florbetapir-PET) and were dichotomized into positive or negative independently for each neuroimaging biomarker. Demographic, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging data were compared between positive and negative subgroups. The MRI-positive subgroup had lower executive performances and mixed patterns of lower volume and metabolism in AD-characteristic regions and in the prefrontal cortex. The FDG-positive subgroup showed only hypometabolism, predominantly in AD-sensitive areas extending to the whole neocortex, compared with the FDG-negative subgroup. The amyloid-positive subgroup was older and included more APOE 4 carriers compared with the amyloidnegative subgroup. When considering MRI and/or FDG biomarkers together (i.e., the neurodegeneration-positive), there was a trend for an inverse relationship with A␤ deposition such that those with neurodegeneration tended to show less A␤ deposition and the reverse was true as well. Our findings suggest that: (1) MRI and FDG biomarkers provide complementary rather than redundant information and (2) relatively young cognitively normal elders tend to have either neurodegeneration or A␤ deposition, but not both, suggesting additive rather than sequential/causative links between AD neuroimaging biomarkers at this age. Key words: Alzheimer's disease; amyloid; biomarkers; FDG; MRI; PET Significance StatementNeuroimaging biomarkers are included in the recent research criteria for preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, how to use these biomarkers is still being debated, especially regarding their sequence. Our findings suggest that MRI and FDG-PET biomarkers should be used in combination, offering an additive contribution instead of reflecting the same process of neurodegeneration. Moreover, the present study also challenges the hierarchical use of the neuroimaging biomarkers in preclinical AD because it suggests that the neurodegeneration observed in this population is not due to ␤-amyloid deposition. Rather, our results suggest that ␤-amyloid-and tau-related pathological processes may interact but not necessarily appear in a systematic sequence.