S A Sajjadi1, N Sheikh-Bahaei2,3, J Cross3, J H Gillard2,3, D Scoffings3, P J Nestor4. 1. From the Department of Neurology (S.A.S.), University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California ssajjadi@uci.edu. 2. Department of Radiology (N.S.-B., J.H.G.), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 3. Department of Radiology (N.S.-.B., J.C., J.H.G., D.S.), Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK. 4. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (P.J.N.), Magdeburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Primary-progressive aphasia is a clinically and pathologically heterogeneous condition. Nonfluent, semantic, and logopenic are the currently recognized clinical variants. The recommendations for the classification of primary-progressive aphasia have advocated variant-specific patterns of atrophy. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the proposed imaging criteria and to assess the intra- and interrater reporting agreements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort comprised 51 patients with a root diagnosis of primary-progressive aphasia, 25 patients with typical Alzheimer disease, and 26 matched control participants. Group-level analysis (voxel-based morphometry) confirmed the proposed atrophy patterns for the 3 syndromes. The individual T1-weighted anatomic images were reported by 3 senior neuroradiologists. RESULTS: We observed a dichotomized pattern of high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (93%) for the proposed atrophy pattern of semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia and low sensitivity (21% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 43% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) but high specificity (91% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 95% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) in other primary-progressive aphasia variants and Alzheimer disease (sensitivity 43%, specificity 92%). MR imaging was least sensitive for the diagnosis of nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia. Intrarater agreement analysis showed mean κ values above the widely accepted threshold of 0.6 (mean, 0.63 ± 0.16). Pair-wise interobserver agreement outcomes, however, were well below this threshold in 5 of the 6 possible interrater contrasts (mean, 0.41 ± 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: While the group-level results were in precise agreement with the recommendations, semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia was the only subtype for which the proposed recommendations were both sensitive and specific at an individual level.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Primary-progressive aphasia is a clinically and pathologically heterogeneous condition. Nonfluent, semantic, and logopenic are the currently recognized clinical variants. The recommendations for the classification of primary-progressive aphasia have advocated variant-specific patterns of atrophy. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the proposed imaging criteria and to assess the intra- and interrater reporting agreements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort comprised 51 patients with a root diagnosis of primary-progressive aphasia, 25 patients with typical Alzheimer disease, and 26 matched control participants. Group-level analysis (voxel-based morphometry) confirmed the proposed atrophy patterns for the 3 syndromes. The individual T1-weighted anatomic images were reported by 3 senior neuroradiologists. RESULTS: We observed a dichotomized pattern of high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (93%) for the proposed atrophy pattern of semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia and low sensitivity (21% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 43% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) but high specificity (91% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 95% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) in other primary-progressive aphasia variants and Alzheimer disease (sensitivity 43%, specificity 92%). MR imaging was least sensitive for the diagnosis of nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia. Intrarater agreement analysis showed mean κ values above the widely accepted threshold of 0.6 (mean, 0.63 ± 0.16). Pair-wise interobserver agreement outcomes, however, were well below this threshold in 5 of the 6 possible interrater contrasts (mean, 0.41 ± 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: While the group-level results were in precise agreement with the recommendations, semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia was the only subtype for which the proposed recommendations were both sensitive and specific at an individual level.
Authors: Julio Acosta-Cabronero; Guy B Williams; João M S Pereira; George Pengas; Peter J Nestor Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-11-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Keith A Josephs; Joseph R Duffy; Edyth A Strand; Jennifer L Whitwell; Kenneth F Layton; Joseph E Parisi; Mary F Hauser; Robert J Witte; Bradley F Boeve; David S Knopman; Dennis W Dickson; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Brain Date: 2006-04-13 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: S Gil-Navarro; A Lladó; L Rami; M Castellví; B Bosch; N Bargalló; F Lomeña; R Reñé; N Montagut; A Antonell; J L Molinuevo; R Sánchez-Valle Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Claudia Jacova; Steven T Dekosky; Pascale Barberger-Gateau; Jeffrey Cummings; André Delacourte; Douglas Galasko; Serge Gauthier; Gregory Jicha; Kenichi Meguro; John O'brien; Florence Pasquier; Philippe Robert; Martin Rossor; Steven Salloway; Yaakov Stern; Pieter J Visser; Philip Scheltens Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Neetu Soni; Manish Ora; Girish Bathla; Chandana Nagaraj; Laura L Boles Ponto; Michael M Graham; Jitender Saini; Yusuf Menda Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-03-05
Authors: Ruth U Ingram; Ajay D Halai; Gorana Pobric; Seyed Sajjadi; Karalyn Patterson; Matthew A Lambon Ralph Journal: Brain Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Charles R Marshall; Chris J D Hardy; Anna Volkmer; Lucy L Russell; Rebecca L Bond; Phillip D Fletcher; Camilla N Clark; Catherine J Mummery; Jonathan M Schott; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox; Sebastian J Crutch; Jonathan D Rohrer; Jason D Warren Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.849