4.0 Article

Challenging the clinical utility of the 14-3-3 protein for the diagnosis of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

Journal

ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 6, Pages 813-816

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.60.6.813

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR-00079] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [N01-NS02328] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) is a rapidly progressive and fatal neurodegenerative disorder for which there is no noninvasive and disease-specific test for premortem diagnosis. Previous studies have suggested that, in the proper clinical context, the 14-3-3 protein in cerebrospinal fluid is a reliable marker for sporadic CJD. Objective: To assess the sensitivity of the cerebrospinal fluid 14-3-3 protein test among patients with definite sporadic CJD. Design and Setting: We reviewed cases of sporadic CJD referred to our institution that were ultimately proved by pathological examination and on which cerebrospinal fluid 14-3-3 testing had been performed. Participants: Patients with CJD referred to our institution for clinical and/or pathological evaluation (biopsy- or autopsy-confirmed diagnosis) from January 1, 1998, through July 15, 2002, and on whom 14-3-3 testing had been performed. Thirty-two such patients with definite sporadic CJD were identified. Main Outcome Measure: The 14-3-3 test results, from various laboratories, in these 32 patients. Results: Seventeen of the 32 patients had a positive result for the 14-3-3 test, yielding a sensitivity of only 53%. A positive 14-3-3 result was significantly correlated with a shorter time between disease onset and the lumbar puncture for the 14-3-3 test. Conclusions: Testing for the 14-3-3 protein is only modestly sensitive to sporadic CJD, and we caution against ruling out a diagnosis of the disease on the basis of a negative 14-3-3 result.

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