D Ferreira1, L Cavallin2,3, E-M Larsson4, J-S Muehlboeck1, P Mecocci5, B Vellas6, M Tsolaki7, I Kłoszewska8, H Soininen9, S Lovestone10, A Simmons11,12,13, L-O Wahlund1, E Westman1. 1. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Medical Imaging and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. Institute of Gerontology and Geriatrics, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. 6. INSERM U 558, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 7. 3rd Department of Neurology, Aristoteleion Panepistimeion Thessalonikis, Thessaloniki, Greece. 8. Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland. 9. University of Eastern Finland, University Hospital of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland. 10. Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 11. Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. 12. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health, London, UK. 13. NIHR Biomedical Research Unit for Dementia, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrophy in the medial temporal lobe, frontal lobe and posterior cortex can be measured with visual rating scales such as the medial temporal atrophy (MTA), global cortical atrophy - frontal subscale (GCA-F) and posterior atrophy (PA) scales, respectively. However, practical cut-offs are urgently needed, especially now that different presentations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are included in the revised diagnostic criteria. AIMS: The aim of this study was to generate a list of practical cut-offs for the MTA, GCA-F and PA scales, for both diagnosis of AD and determining prognosis in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to evaluate the influence of key demographic and clinical factors on these cut-offs. METHODS: AddNeuroMed and ADNI cohorts were combined giving a total of 1147 participants (322 patients with AD, 480 patients with MCI and 345 control subjects). The MTA, GCA-F and PA scales were applied and a broad range of cut-offs was evaluated. RESULTS: The MTA scale showed better diagnostic and predictive performances than the GCA-F and PA scales. Age, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 status and age at disease onset influenced all three scales. For the age ranges 45-64, 65-74, 75-84 and 85-94 years, the following cut-offs should be used. MTA: ≥1.5, ≥1.5, ≥2 and ≥2.5; GCA-F, ≥1, ≥1, ≥1 and ≥1; and PA, ≥1, ≥1, ≥1 and ≥1, respectively, with an adjustment for early-onset ApoE ε4 noncarrier AD patients (MTA: ≥2, ≥2, ≥3 and ≥3; and GCA-F: ≥1, ≥1, ≥2 and ≥2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: If successfully validated in clinical settings, the list of practical cut-offs proposed here might be useful in clinical practice. Their use might also (i) promote research on atrophy subtypes, (ii) increase the understanding of different presentations of AD, (iii) improve diagnosis and prognosis and (iv) aid population selection and enrichment for clinical trials.
BACKGROUND:Atrophy in the medial temporal lobe, frontal lobe and posterior cortex can be measured with visual rating scales such as the medial temporal atrophy (MTA), global cortical atrophy - frontal subscale (GCA-F) and posterior atrophy (PA) scales, respectively. However, practical cut-offs are urgently needed, especially now that different presentations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are included in the revised diagnostic criteria. AIMS: The aim of this study was to generate a list of practical cut-offs for the MTA, GCA-F and PA scales, for both diagnosis of AD and determining prognosis in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to evaluate the influence of key demographic and clinical factors on these cut-offs. METHODS:AddNeuroMed and ADNI cohorts were combined giving a total of 1147 participants (322 patients with AD, 480 patients with MCI and 345 control subjects). The MTA, GCA-F and PA scales were applied and a broad range of cut-offs was evaluated. RESULTS: The MTA scale showed better diagnostic and predictive performances than the GCA-F and PA scales. Age, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 status and age at disease onset influenced all three scales. For the age ranges 45-64, 65-74, 75-84 and 85-94 years, the following cut-offs should be used. MTA: ≥1.5, ≥1.5, ≥2 and ≥2.5; GCA-F, ≥1, ≥1, ≥1 and ≥1; and PA, ≥1, ≥1, ≥1 and ≥1, respectively, with an adjustment for early-onset ApoE ε4 noncarrier ADpatients (MTA: ≥2, ≥2, ≥3 and ≥3; and GCA-F: ≥1, ≥1, ≥2 and ≥2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: If successfully validated in clinical settings, the list of practical cut-offs proposed here might be useful in clinical practice. Their use might also (i) promote research on atrophy subtypes, (ii) increase the understanding of different presentations of AD, (iii) improve diagnosis and prognosis and (iv) aid population selection and enrichment for clinical trials.
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie M Shaw; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Alessandra Dodich; Aline Mendes; Frédéric Assal; Christian Chicherio; Barinjaka Rakotomiaramanana; Paulina Andryszak; Cristina Festari; Federica Ribaldi; Max Scheffler; Roger Schibli; Adam J Schwarz; Dina Zekry; Karl-Olof Lövblad; Marina Boccardi; Paul G Unschuld; Gabriel Gold; Giovanni B Frisoni; Valentina Garibotto Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lars-Olof Wahlund; Eric Westman; Danielle van Westen; Anders Wallin; Sara Shams; Lena Cavallin; Elna-Marie Larsson Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2016-12-21
Authors: Lorna Harper; Giorgio G Fumagalli; Frederik Barkhof; Philip Scheltens; John T O'Brien; Femke Bouwman; Emma J Burton; Jonathan D Rohrer; Nick C Fox; Gerard R Ridgway; Jonathan M Schott Journal: Brain Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Dewen Meng; Akram A Hosseini; Richard J Simpson; Quratulain Shaikh; Christopher R Tench; Robert A Dineen; Dorothee P Auer Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 11.105