AIMS: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) risk precautions are required when performing brain biopsies on patients with a dementing illness and in 'risk' groups. The impact on a diagnostic neuropathology service is considerable. We sought to determine if better case selection might reduce the necessity for application of CJD risk precautions. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical information, contributory investigations and final neuropathologic diagnosis in a cohort of patients (n = 21), referred to the National CJD Surveillance Centre between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. RESULTS: Of this 21-patient cohort, five were positive for CJD, four belonged to the 'at risk of CJD' category requiring brain surgery, while the remaining 12 were referred to the National CJD Surveillance Unit with CJD as part of their differential diagnosis. CJD was confirmed in 5/21 (three sporadic [s]CJD, one variant [v]CJD and one iatrogenic [i] CJD). CJD was clinically probable in 4/5 proven CJD patients (80%). The patients (n = 4) in the 'at risk of CJD' group were diagnosed with tumour (n = 2), inflammation (n = 1) and non-specific changes (n = 1). Of the remaining 12 patients (in whom CJD was included in the differential diagnosis), the final neuropathologic diagnoses included tumour (n = 2), neurodegenerative (n = 2), inflammatory (n = 1), metabolic (n = 2), vascular (n = 2) and non-specific gliosis (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: More often than not, the clinical suspicion of CJD was not borne out by the final neuropathological diagnosis. Failure by clinicians to adhere to the recommended CJD investigation algorithm impacts adversely on the neuropathology workload and causes unnecessary concern among operating theatre, laboratory and nursing personnel.
AIMS: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) risk precautions are required when performing brain biopsies on patients with a dementing illness and in 'risk' groups. The impact on a diagnostic neuropathology service is considerable. We sought to determine if better case selection might reduce the necessity for application of CJD risk precautions. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical information, contributory investigations and final neuropathologic diagnosis in a cohort of patients (n = 21), referred to the National CJD Surveillance Centre between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. RESULTS: Of this 21-patient cohort, five were positive for CJD, four belonged to the 'at risk of CJD' category requiring brain surgery, while the remaining 12 were referred to the National CJD Surveillance Unit with CJD as part of their differential diagnosis. CJD was confirmed in 5/21 (three sporadic [s]CJD, one variant [v]CJD and one iatrogenic [i] CJD). CJD was clinically probable in 4/5 proven CJDpatients (80%). The patients (n = 4) in the 'at risk of CJD' group were diagnosed with tumour (n = 2), inflammation (n = 1) and non-specific changes (n = 1). Of the remaining 12 patients (in whom CJD was included in the differential diagnosis), the final neuropathologic diagnoses included tumour (n = 2), neurodegenerative (n = 2), inflammatory (n = 1), metabolic (n = 2), vascular (n = 2) and non-specific gliosis (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: More often than not, the clinical suspicion of CJD was not borne out by the final neuropathological diagnosis. Failure by clinicians to adhere to the recommended CJD investigation algorithm impacts adversely on the neuropathology workload and causes unnecessary concern among operating theatre, laboratory and nursing personnel.
Authors: Jonathan M Schott; Lilla Reiniger; Maria Thom; Janice L Holton; Joan Grieve; Sebastian Brandner; Jason D Warren; Tamas Revesz Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2010-07-18 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Matt Stevenson; Lesley Uttley; Jeremy E Oakley; Christopher Carroll; Stephen E Chick; Ruth Wong Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.014