Article

Distinct antemortem profiles in patients with pathologically defined frontotemporal dementia.

Department of Neurology, 2 Gibson, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283, USA.
JAMA Neurology (Impact Factor: 7.58). 12/2007; 64(11):1601-9. DOI: 10.1001/archneur.64.11.1601
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clinical-pathologic studies are crucial to understanding brain-behavior relations and improving diagnostic accuracy in neurodegenerative diseases.
To establish clinical, neuropsychological, and imaging features of clinically diagnosed patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) that help discriminate between pathologically determined tau-positive FTD, tau-negative FTD, and frontal-variant Alzheimer disease.
Retrospective clinical-pathologic survey.
Academic medical center. Patients Sixty-one participants with the clinical diagnosis of a frontotemporal spectrum disorder who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation and had an autopsy-confirmed disease.
Neuropsychological performance and high-resolution structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Distinguishing features of patients with tau-positive FTD include visual perceptual-spatial difficulty and an extrapyramidal disorder significantly more often than other patients, significant cortical atrophy in the frontal and parietal regions as evidenced on MRI, and the burden of pathology is greatest in the frontal and parietal regions. Patients with tau-negative FTD are distinguished by their greater difficulties with social, language, and verbally mediated executive functions, significant cortical atrophy in the frontal and temporal regions as evidenced on MRI, and significant frontal and temporal pathology. Patients with Alzheimer disease at autopsy have significantly impaired delayed recall during episodic memory testing; atrophy that involves temporal areas, including the hippocampus, as evidenced on MRI; and widely distributed pathology including the medial temporal structures. A discriminant function analysis grouped patients on the basis of clinical and neuropsychological features with 87.5% accuracy.
Clinical, neuropsychological, and imaging profiles can contribute to accurate antemortem diagnosis in FTD.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
91 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the search for therapeutic modifiers, frontotemporal dementia (FTD) has traditionally been overshadowed by other conditions such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). A clinically and pathologically diverse condition, FTD has been galvanized by a number of recent discoveries such as novel genetic variants in familial and sporadic forms of disease and the identification of TAR DNA binding protein of 43 kDa (TDP-43) as the defining constituent of inclusions in more than half of cases. In combination with an ever-expanding knowledge of the function and dysfunction of tau—a protein which is pathologically aggregated in the majority of the remaining cases—there exists a greater understanding of FTD than ever before. These advances may indicate potential approaches for the development of hypothetical therapeutics, but FTD remains highly complex and the roles of tau and TDP-43 in neurodegeneration are still wholly unclear. Here the challenges facing potential therapeutic strategies are discussed, which include sufficiently accurate disease diagnosis and sophisticated technology to deliver effective therapies.
    Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 08/2014; · 5.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared the sensitivity and specificity of two delayed recall scores from the Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) test with consensus clinical diagnosis to differentiate cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) versus non-AD pathologies. At a memory disorders clinic, 117 cognitively impaired patients were administered a baseline 3MS test and received a contemporaneous consensus clinical diagnosis. Their brains were examined after death about 5 years later. Using logistic regression with forward selection to predict pathologically defined AD versus non-AD, 10-min delayed recall entered first (p = 0.001), followed by clinical diagnosis (p = 0.02); 1-min delayed recall did not enter. 10-min delayed recall scores ≤4 (score range = 0-9) were 87% sensitive and 47% specific in predicting AD pathology; consensus clinical diagnosis was 82% sensitive and 45% specific. For the 57 patients whose initial Mini-Mental State Examination scores were ≥19 (the median), 3MS 10-min delayed recall scores ≤4 showed some loss of sensitivity (80%) but a substantial gain in specificity (77%). In conclusion, 10-min delayed recall score on the brief 3MS test distinguished between AD versus non-AD pathology about 5 years before death at least as well as consensus clinical diagnosis that requires much more comprehensive information and complex deliberation.
    Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD 11/2013; · 4.17 Impact Factor