4.6 Article

Empiric refinement of the pathologic assessment of Lewy-related pathology in the dementia patient

Journal

BRAIN PATHOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 220-224

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2007.00117.x

Keywords

Lewy bodies; dementia; alpha-synuclein

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG10124, P30 AG010124, P50 AG005133, P50 AG005136, P50 AG005136-229003, U01 AG006781-13, AG10845, P50 AG005136-25, U01 AG016976, AG05133, AG05136, P50 AG005133-229002, P30 AG010124-09, AG06781, U01 AG006781] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS048595, R01 NS048595-01, NS053488, P50 NS053488-01A2, R01 NS048595-05, P50 NS053488, NS48595] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lewy-related pathology (LRP) is a common pathologic finding at autopsy in dementia patients. Recently criteria for categorizing types of LRP in dementia patients were published, though these criteria have yet to be systematically applied to large dementia samples. We examined a large (n = 208) referral-based autopsy sample for LRP, and applied the published criteria for LRP categorization to these cases. We found almost half (49%) of LRP positive cases from this sample were not classifiable. However, modifying the published criteria by reducing the number of regions requiring examination, allowing more variability in LRP severity scores within specific brain regions, and adding an amygdala predominant category permitted classification of 97% of LRP positive cases from the referral-based sample. Application of the modified criteria to an unrelated community-based autopsy sample (n = 226) allowed classification of 96% of LRP positive cases. Modest modifications in the published criteria permit a significantly greater number of dementia cases with LRP to be classified. In addition, this modification allows for more limited sampling of brain regions for classification of LRP. We propose that these modified criteria for the categorization of LRP be utilized in patients with a history of dementia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available