OBJECTIVE: Accurate distinction between dementia subtypes is important for patient care and pharmacological treatment. Continuing systematic comparisons of clinical and neuropathological dementia diagnoses may provide a basis for further improvement of the diagnostic procedure. The purpose of this study was to investigate concordance between clinical dementia diagnosis and neuropathological findings in the specialized dementia care. METHODS: Inclusion required 1) a clinical dementia disorder diagnosed at a hospital-based memory clinic and 2) a neuropathological examination within the Department of Pathology at the University Hospital in Lund, Sweden, during the years 1996-2006. A total of 176 consecutive patients fulfilled the criteria and were thus included. Clinical dementia diagnoses were obtained from the medical records and compared with the neuropathological findings. RESULTS: The clinical and pathological dementia diagnoses were in full accordance in 86 (49%) of the patients (kappa 0.37). In an additional 24 (14%) cases, the clinical diagnosis corresponded with some but not all pathological components judged to contribute to the dementia disorder. Of the patients with clinical Alzheimer disease, 84% (46/55) had a significant Alzheimer component with or without other significant pathology at neuropathological examination. The corresponding figure for vascular dementia (VaD) was 59% (24/41), for frontotemporal dementia 74% (20/27), for combined Alzheimer and VaD 25% (4/16), and for dementia with Lewy bodies 67% (6/9). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that clinical dementia diagnoses do not always correspond with neuropathological changes. It stresses the importance of neuropathological examination in research and in daily clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: Accurate distinction between dementia subtypes is important for patient care and pharmacological treatment. Continuing systematic comparisons of clinical and neuropathological dementia diagnoses may provide a basis for further improvement of the diagnostic procedure. The purpose of this study was to investigate concordance between clinical dementia diagnosis and neuropathological findings in the specialized dementia care. METHODS: Inclusion required 1) a clinical dementia disorder diagnosed at a hospital-based memory clinic and 2) a neuropathological examination within the Department of Pathology at the University Hospital in Lund, Sweden, during the years 1996-2006. A total of 176 consecutive patients fulfilled the criteria and were thus included. Clinical dementia diagnoses were obtained from the medical records and compared with the neuropathological findings. RESULTS: The clinical and pathological dementia diagnoses were in full accordance in 86 (49%) of the patients (kappa 0.37). In an additional 24 (14%) cases, the clinical diagnosis corresponded with some but not all pathological components judged to contribute to the dementia disorder. Of the patients with clinical Alzheimer disease, 84% (46/55) had a significant Alzheimer component with or without other significant pathology at neuropathological examination. The corresponding figure for vascular dementia (VaD) was 59% (24/41), for frontotemporal dementia 74% (20/27), for combined Alzheimer and VaD 25% (4/16), and for dementia with Lewy bodies 67% (6/9). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that clinical dementia diagnoses do not always correspond with neuropathological changes. It stresses the importance of neuropathological examination in research and in daily clinical practice.
Authors: Maria Landqvist Waldö; Lars Gustafson; Karin Nilsson; Bryan J Traynor; Alan E Renton; Elisabet Englund; Ulla Passant Journal: Am J Neurodegener Dis Date: 2013-11-29
Authors: Matthew Schrag; Claudius Mueller; Udochukwu Oyoyo; Mark A Smith; Wolff M Kirsch Journal: Prog Neurobiol Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 11.685
Authors: Maria Landqvist Waldö; Alexander Frizell Santillo; Lars Gustafson; Elisabet Englund; Ulla Passant Journal: Am J Neurodegener Dis Date: 2014-09-06
Authors: George Markousis-Mavrogenis; Flora Bacopoulou; Genovefa Kolovou; Maria-Roser Pons; Aikaterini Giannakopoulou; Antigoni Papavasiliou; George D Kitas; George P Chrousos; Sophie I Mavrogeni Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 2.751
Authors: Maria Landqvist Waldö; Alexander Frizell Santillo; Ulla Passant; Henrik Zetterberg; Lars Rosengren; Christer Nilsson; Elisabet Englund Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 2.474