4.5 Article

Looking for Measures of Disease Severity in the Frontotemporal Dementia Continuum

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 1227-1235

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-160178

关键词

Activities of daily living; Frontal Behavioral Inventory; frontotemporal dementia continuum; FTLD-modified CDR; Mini-Mental State Examination; Neuropsychiatry Inventory; voxel-based morphometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is characterized by executive dysfunctions, behavioral disturbances, language deficits and extrapyramidal symptoms. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration-modified Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (FTLD modified-CDR) has been proposed to measure disease severity in behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD). No tools of global disease severity are available in the other FTLD phenotypes [primary progressive aphasias (PPAs), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and corticobasal syndrome (CBS)]. This would be strategic as outcome measures in clinical trials. To this aim, we evaluated the association between brain volume (voxel based morphometry) and available clinical scales in FTD. In 176 FTD patients (64 bvFTD, 40 PPAs, 32 PSP, 40 CBS), instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs), FTLD-modified CDR, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI), and Neuropsychiatry Inventory (NPI) were administered and MRI performed. Whole-brain linear correlation between each clinical rating scale and brain volume was performed. In bvFTD and PPAs, FTLD-modified CDR was associated with regional brain volume, thereby providing evidence for validity of the FTLD-modified CDR. In PSP, none of the clinical indicators were associated with regional brain volume. In CBS, ADLs and MMSE correlated with frontotemporal lower volume. Considering monogenic disease, FTLD-modified CDR was the best measure. In FTD continuum, different measures able to correlate with brain damage should be considered for the different clinical phenotypes or genetic traits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据