Table 4.
Positron emission tomography, pharmaco-functional magnetic resonance imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy neuroimaging studies of HRT.
| Study | Subjects [STRAW stage] | Age (y) | Hormonal treatment | Technique / Tracer | Test | Comparison | Results | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kranz et al., 2014 | 30 | 55 ± 5 | gr1 (n = 10): E | PET (2x) | 5-HT1A | Baseline vs. E or HT | n.s. | |
| [S:≥+1B/C] | (47–64) | gr2 (n = 10): E+P | [carbonyl-11C]WAY-100635 | |||||
| gr3 (n = 10): placebo | ||||||||
| Epperson et al., 2012 | 8 | 53 ± 4 | Tryptophan/sham depletion baseline + transdermal E2 (3–8w) | ph-fMRI (2x) | 5-HT depletion + working memory | TD by ET interaction | TD [2 Back]: ↓dlPFC, miF/CG, but not after ET | = Performance |
| [S:≥+1B/C] | 5-HT depletion + emotion identification | TD by ET interaction | TD+ET: ↓OFC, Amy, than TD alone | = Performance | ||||
| Smith et al., 2011 | 50 | 66 ± 4 | HT history (within 2y of MP and ≥10y): | PET | AChE | ET vs. HT vs. NT | HT vs. NT: ↑HC l, pC | Only pC after adjustment for years of HT |
| [S:+1C/2] | 64 ± 5 | gr1 (n = 13): CEE | [11C]PMP | |||||
| 66 ± 5 | gr2 (n = 21): CEE+P | |||||||
| gr3 (n = 16): NT | ||||||||
| Compton et al., 2008 | 34 | 62 ± 6 | gr1 (n = 17): E/CEE | SPET | 5-HT2A | NT vs. ET | NT: ↑ HC | = Performance; |
| [S:+1C/2] | 65 ± 8 | gr2 (n = 17): NT | 123I-5-I-R91150 | HC 5-HT2A: -corr memory | ||||
| Norbury et al., 2007 | 32 | 65 ± 6 | gr2 (n = 11): MP ET (past ET +sMP) | SPET | m1/m4 | ET vs. NT | ET: ↑ striatum l, HC l, lFC, Tha | ↑ Performance in executive function; |
| [S:+2] | 65 ± 8 | gr3 (n = 11): MP NT | (R,R)[123I]-I-QNB | mAChR | Corr: E and m1/m4 in TC, HC l in ET | |||
| Yue et al., 2007 | 182 | 66 ± 8 | gr1 (n = 83): HT (>4y, !low dose) | 1H MRS | NAA, tCR, mI | HT vs. NT | HT: ↑ NAA/tCr HC in ApoE ε 4 carriers | ApoE Genotype effect |
| [S:+2] | 67 ± 8 | gr2 (n = 99): NT | ||||||
| Gardiner et al., 2004 | 13 | Baseline + CEE (4w) + CEE & P (2w) | SPET | DAT | Baseline vs. ET | ET: ↑ aPu l | ||
| [S:+2(?)] | [99mTc]TRODAT-1 | Baseline vs. HT | HT: ↑ aPu | |||||
| Kugaya et al., 2003 | 10 | 54 ± 7 | Baseline + E (10w) | PET (2x) | 5-HT2A | Baseline vs. ET | ET: ↑ PFC r (BA9), iFG r (BA47), meFG r (BA6, 10), aCC r (BA32) | HT: ↑ verbal fluency and executive cognition performance, but not mood |
| [S:≥+1B] | [18F]denteroaltanserin | corr +: E and 5-HT2Ain iFG r (BA44) | ||||||
| Moses-Kolko et al., 2003 | 5 | Baseline + E (8–14w) + E and P (2–6w) | PET (3x) | 5-HT2A | Baseline vs. ET | ET: ↑ sFG r, vlPFC r, iPL l, TL l | ||
| [S:≥+1(?)] | [18F]altanserin | Baseline vs. HT | HT: ↑ sFG, precG l, Ins l, meFG r, lOFC l, pCG r, Cun r, Tpole l, mTG, LgG l, PHG l, FuG r, meOG l | |||||
| ET vs. HT | HT: ↑ sFG l, meOFC r, lOFC l, pCun/sPL r | |||||||
| Smith et al., 2001 | 28 | 64 ± 3 | (HRT within 2y MP): | SPECT | VAChT | ET vs. NT | n.s. | = Overall performance |
| [S:+2] | 65 ± 4 | gr1 (n = 8): E | [123I]BVM | ET vs. HT | ET: ↑ pC | |||
| 67 ± 6 | gr2 (n = 8): E + P | yET/HT | yET/HT +corr: FC, PC, TC, aC, pC | |||||
| gr3 (n = 12): NT | ||||||||
| Robertson et al., 2001 | 37 | 63 ± 10 | [parietal lobe]: | 1H MRS | NAA, Cr+PCr, Cho | ET vs. NT | [Cho]: NT: ↑ PL, HC | No effect of ApoE genotype |
| [S:+2] | 65 ± 8 | gr1 (n = 21): E (CEE, n = 5; + P, n = 2) | [Cho]: NT: corr −: memory in HC | |||||
| gr2 (n = 16): NT | ||||||||
| [Hipp]: | ||||||||
| gr1 (n = 14): E | ||||||||
| gr2 (n = 12): NT | ||||||||
| Moses et al., 2000 | 5 | 52 ± 3 | Baseline + E2 (8–14w) + E2 and P (2–6w) | PET (3x) | 5-HT2A | Baseline vs. ET vs. HT | HT vs. baseline: ↑lOFC, pgACC, dlPFC, daCC, CER | Possible sole effect of E over time (DVROI) |
| [S:≥+1B] | [18F]altanserin |
See Appendix for acronyms/abbreviations.