OBJECTIVES: To determine patterns of hypometabolism on fluorodeoxyglucose F18 positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in patients with progressive apraxia of speech (PAS) and primary progressive aphasia (PPA) variants and to use these patterns to further refine current classification. DESIGN: We identified all patients who had FDG-PET and PAS or PPA who were evaluated by an expert speech-language pathologist. Patterns of hypometabolism were independently classified by 2 raters blinded to clinical data. Three speech-language pathologists reclassified all patients into 1 of 7 operationally defined categories of PAS and PPA blinded to FDG-PET data. SETTING: Tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients with PAS or PPA and FDG-PET. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 PET hypometabolic pattern. RESULTS: Of the 24 patients in the study, 9 had nonfluent speech output; 14, fluent speech; and 1 was unclassifiable. Twenty-one patients showed FDG hypometabolism; the remaining 3 did not. Among the patients showing hypometabolism, 8 had a prerolandic pattern of which 7 had nonfluent speech including progressive nonfluent aphasia (n = 3), PAS (n = 1), and mixed nonfluent aphasia/apraxia of speech (n = 3); the other patient had PPA unclassifiable. The remaining 13 had a postrolandic pattern, all with fluent speech (P < .001), including logopenic progressive aphasia (n = 6), progressive fluent aphasia (n = 6), and semantic dementia (n = 1). Patterns of hypometabolism differed between the nonfluent variants and between the fluent variants, including progressive fluent aphasia. CONCLUSION: Patterns of FDG-PET hypometabolism support the clinical categorizations of fluency, the distinction of apraxia of speech from progressive nonfluent aphasia, and the designation of a progressive fluent aphasia category.
OBJECTIVES: To determine patterns of hypometabolism on fluorodeoxyglucoseF18 positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in patients with progressive apraxia of speech (PAS) and primary progressive aphasia (PPA) variants and to use these patterns to further refine current classification. DESIGN: We identified all patients who had FDG-PET and PAS or PPA who were evaluated by an expert speech-language pathologist. Patterns of hypometabolism were independently classified by 2 raters blinded to clinical data. Three speech-language pathologists reclassified all patients into 1 of 7 operationally defined categories of PAS and PPA blinded to FDG-PET data. SETTING: Tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients with PAS or PPA and FDG-PET. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: FluorodeoxyglucoseF18 PET hypometabolic pattern. RESULTS: Of the 24 patients in the study, 9 had nonfluent speech output; 14, fluent speech; and 1 was unclassifiable. Twenty-one patients showed FDG hypometabolism; the remaining 3 did not. Among the patients showing hypometabolism, 8 had a prerolandic pattern of which 7 had nonfluent speech including progressive nonfluent aphasia (n = 3), PAS (n = 1), and mixed nonfluent aphasia/apraxia of speech (n = 3); the other patient had PPA unclassifiable. The remaining 13 had a postrolandic pattern, all with fluent speech (P < .001), including logopenic progressive aphasia (n = 6), progressive fluent aphasia (n = 6), and semantic dementia (n = 1). Patterns of hypometabolism differed between the nonfluent variants and between the fluent variants, including progressive fluent aphasia. CONCLUSION: Patterns of FDG-PET hypometabolism support the clinical categorizations of fluency, the distinction of apraxia of speech from progressive nonfluent aphasia, and the designation of a progressive fluent aphasia category.
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Gaël Chételat; Dennis Dickson; Anne M Fagan; Giovanni B Frisoni; William Jagust; Elizabeth C Mormino; Ronald C Petersen; Reisa A Sperling; Wiesje M van der Flier; Victor L Villemagne; Pieter J Visser; Stephanie J B Vos Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Stefanie Schreiber; Frank Schreiber; Samuel N Lockhart; Andy Horng; Alexandre Bejanin; Susan M Landau; William J Jagust Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Alissa M Butts; Mary M Machulda; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Jennifer L Whitwell; Keith A Josephs Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Keith A Josephs; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Mary M Machulda; Prashanthi Vemuri; Matthew L Senjem; Ralph B Perkerson; Matthew C Baker; Val Lowe; Clifford R Jack; Rosa Rademakers; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: J Neurol Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Manja Lehmann; Pia M Ghosh; Cindee Madison; Robert Laforce; Chiara Corbetta-Rastelli; Michael W Weiner; Michael D Greicius; William W Seeley; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Howard J Rosen; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Brain Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 13.501