4.0 Article

Magnetic resonance imaging signatures of tissue pathology in frontotemporal dementia

Journal

ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 62, Issue 9, Pages 1402-1408

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.62.9.1402

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G116/143] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [G116/143] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G116/143] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The pathologic substrates of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are difficult to predict in vivo. Objective: To determine whether different pathologic substrates of FTD have distinct patterns of regional atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Design: Retrospective case study. Setting: The Institute of Neurology, University College London, and the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London. Patients: Twenty-one cases of FTD selected on pathologic grounds (9 with ubiquitin-positive [tau- and alpha-synuclein-negative] inclusions [FTD-U], 7 with Pick disease [PiD], and 5 with familial FTD with tau exon 10+16 mutations [tau exon 10+16]) and 20 healthy controls were studied. Main Outcome Measures: Patterns of gray matter atrophy in each group as assessed by voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and a blinded visual assessment of each MRI study. Results: All pathologic substrates were associated with atrophy that involved the inferior and medial temporal and inferior frontal lobes. Additionally, specific VBM signatures were identified for each subgroup: FTD-U was associated with asymmetric (left > right) temporal lobe atrophy, PiD was associated with severe dorsolateral bifrontal atrophy, and tau exon 10+16 was associated with asymmetric (right > left) medial temporal lobe atrophy. The VBM findings were supported by blinded visual assessment. Conclusion: These findings suggest that MRI patterns of regional gray matter atrophy constitute signatures of tissue pathology in FTD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available