Clinical amyloid imaging in logopenic progressive aphasia

Nosology of Primary Progressive Aphasia and the Neuropathology of Language

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a dementia syndrome associated with several neuropathologic entities, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and all major forms of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). It is classified into subtypes defined by the nature of the language domain that is most impaired. The asymmetric neurodegeneration of the hemisphere dominant for language (usually left) is one consistent feature of all PPA variants. This feature offers unique opportunities for exploring mechanisms of selective vulnerability in neurodegenerative diseases and the neuroanatomy of language. This chapter reviews some of the current trends in PPA research as well as the challenges that remain to be addressed on the nosology, clinicopathologic correlations, and therapy of this syndrome.

A Case of Crossed Logopenic Primary Progressive Aphasia in a Dextral Patient with Underlying Frontotemporal Dementia

A 61-year-old dextral woman was admitted to the hospital with difficulty finding words. Neurological examinations confirmed that her speech was affected by frequent pauses and occasional phonological paraphasia without cognitive deficits. We detected atrophy, hypoperfusion, and hypometabolism in the right perisylvian and parietal regions, expanding to the right anterior temporal lobes and right inferior frontal gyrus (opercular region) by magnetic resonance imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography, and fluorodexyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET), respectively. Amyloid-PET did not identify the accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) in the bilateral cerebral cortices. We herein report a case of crossed aphasia with Aβ-negative logopenic primary progressive aphasia that was likely the result of frontotemporal lobar degeneration.

Communicating mild cognitive impairment diagnoses with and without amyloid imaging

Background

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has an uncertain etiology and prognosis and may be challenging for clinicians to discuss with patients and families. Amyloid imaging may aid specialists in determining MCI etiology and prognosis, but creates novel challenges related to disease labeling.

Methods

We convened a workgroup to formulate recommendations for clinicians providing care to MCI patients.

Results

Clinicians should use the MCI diagnosis to validate patient and family concerns and educate them that the patient’s cognitive impairment is not normal for his or her age and education level. The MCI diagnosis should not be used to avoid delivering a diagnosis of dementia. For patients who meet Appropriate Use Criteria after standard-of-care clinical workup, amyloid imaging may position specialists to offer more information about etiology and prognosis. Clinicians must set appropriate expectations, including ensuring that patients and families understand the limitations of amyloid imaging. Communication of negative results should include that patients remain at elevated risk for dementia and that negative scans do not indicate a specific diagnosis or signify brain health. Positive amyloid imaging results should elicit further monitoring and conversations about appropriate advance planning. Clinicians should offer written summaries, including referral to appropriate social services.

Conclusions

In patients with MCI, there is a need to devote considerable time and attention to patient education and shared decision-making. Amyloid imaging may be a tool to aid clinicians. Careful management of patient expectations and communication of scan results will be critical to the appropriate use of amyloid imaging information.

Patient and caregiver reactions to clinical amyloid imaging

INTRODUCTION

Amyloid imaging is a tool that has recently become available to dementia specialists evaluating patients with possible Alzheimer's disease. Studies have assessed the impact of amyloid imaging on diagnostic and treatment decisions, but patient and family perspectives have received less attention.

METHODS

To examine how amyloid imaging affects the diagnostic experience of patients and families, we interviewed members of 26 patient-caregiver dyads with whom a neurologist discussed the option of amyloid positron emission tomography.

RESULTS

Most participants who chose to undergo amyloid imaging would choose to do so again. Regardless of the scan outcome, patients and caregivers commonly expressed relief on learning the scan results. Some participants expressed expectations that were beyond scan capabilities.

DISCUSSION

Amyloid imaging may provide information that patients and their families find useful. Clinicians must set correct expectations and ensure that families understand the limitations of amyloid imaging.

Amyloid pet in primary progressive aphasia: case series and systematic review of the literature

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is considered a heterogeneous syndrome, with different clinical subtypes and neuropathological causes. Novel PET biomarkers may help to predict the underlying neuropathology, but many aspects remain unclear. We studied the relationship between amyloid PET and PPA variant in a clinical series of PPA patients. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Patients with PPA were assessed over a 2-year period and classified based on language testing and the International Consensus Criteria as non-fluent/agrammatic (nfvPPA), semantic (svPPA), logopenic variant (lvPPA) or as unclassifiable (ucPPA). All patients underwent a Florbetapir (18-F) PET scan and images were analysed by two nuclear medicine physicians, using a previously validated reading method. Relevant studies published between January 2004 and January 2016 were identified by searching Medline and Web of Science databases. Twenty-four PPA patients were included (13 women, mean age 68.8, SD 8.3 years; range 54-83). Overall, 13/24 were amyloid positive: 0/2 (0%) nfvPPA, 0/4 (0%) svPPA, 10/14 (71.4%) lvPPA and 3/4 (75%) ucPPA (p = 0.028). The systematic review identified seven relevant studies, six including all PPA variants and one only lvPPA. Pooling all studies together, amyloid PET positivity was 122/224 (54.5%) for PPA, 14/52 (26.9%) for nfvPPA, 6/47 (12.8%) for svPPA, 101/119 for lvPPA (84.9%) and 12/22 (54.5%) for ucPPA. Amyloid PET may help to identify the underlying neuropathology in PPA. It could be especially useful in ucPPA, because in these cases it is more difficult to predict pathology. ucPPA is frequently associated with amyloid pathology.

Divergent Network Patterns of Amyloid-β Deposition in Logopenic and Amnestic Alzheimer's Disease Presentations

BACKGROUND

Despite divergent clinical features, language and amnestic presentations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) appear to show comparable regional amyloid-β (Aβ) burden. By using a statistical network approach, we aimed to identify complex network patterns of Aβ deposition and explore the effect of apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele on cortical Aβ burden across AD phenotypes.

METHODS

Sixteen amnestic AD participants and 18 cases with logopenic-variant of primary progressive aphasia (lv-PPA) with a high cortical Aβ burden were selected. A comprehensive clinical assessment, Aβ imaging, and APOE genotyping were performed in all cases. Statistical network analysis was undertaken based on the estimation of sparse partial correlations of Aβ burden between cortical regions. Global and regional network statistical parameters as well as the effect of APOEε4 genotype on cortical Aβ were explored.

RESULTS

The two groups showed equivalent distribution of cortical amyloid burden and frequency of APOEε4 genotype. Statistical network analysis, however, demonstrated divergent connectivity properties. The lv-PPA group demonstrated higher mean network degree and shorter characteristic path length than the amnestic AD group. Amnestic AD cases showed connectivity hubs confined to the mesial temporal and prefrontal lobes bilaterally, whereas lv-PPA cases showed hubs scattered across the whole cortical mantle. An interaction effect on total Aβ burden between APOE genotype and AD presentations was also detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The network analysis reveals interregional network differences not evident using a simple comparison of Aβ burden. This suggests that regional neurotoxic effects may explain the phenotypical differences in AD presentation and that these can be modulated by APOE genotype.