Jason D. Warren

Based on the recent literature and collective experience, an international consortium developed revised guidelines for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. The validation process retrospectively reviewed clinical records and compared the sensitivity of proposed and earlier criteria in a multi-site sample of patients with pathologically verified frontotemporal lobar degeneration. According to the revised criteria, 'possible' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia requires three of six clinically discriminating features (disinhibition, apathy/inertia, loss of sympathy/empathy, perseverative/compulsive behaviours, hyperorality and dysexecutive neuropsychological profile). 'Probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia adds functional disability and characteristic neuroimaging, while behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia 'with definite frontotemporal lobar degeneration' requires histopathological confirmation or a pathogenic mutation. Sixteen brain banks contributed cases meeting histopathological criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and a clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies or vascular dementia at presentation. Cases with predominant primary progressive aphasia or extra-pyramidal syndromes were excluded. In these autopsy-confirmed cases, an experienced neurologist or psychiatrist ascertained clinical features necessary for making a diagnosis according to previous and proposed criteria at presentation. Of 137 cases where features were available for both proposed and previously established criteria, 118 (86%) met 'possible' criteria, and 104 (76%) met criteria for 'probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In contrast, 72 cases (53%) met previously established criteria for the syndrome (P < 0.001 for comparison with 'possible' and 'probable' criteria). Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. In conclusion, the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia improve diagnostic accuracy compared with previously established criteria in a sample with known frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Greater sensitivity of the proposed criteria may reflect the optimized diagnostic features, less restrictive exclusion features and a flexible structure that accommodates different initial clinical presentations. Future studies will be needed to establish the reliability and specificity of these revised diagnostic guidelines.

Abstract The heterogeneity of neurodegenerative diseases is a key confound to disease understanding and treatment development, as study cohorts typically include multiple phenotypes on distinct disease trajectories. Here we introduce a machine-learning technique—Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn)—able to uncover data-driven disease phenotypes with distinct temporal progression patterns, from widely available cross-sectional patient studies. Results from imaging studies in two neurodegenerative diseases reveal subgroups and their distinct trajectories of regional neurodegeneration. In genetic frontotemporal dementia, SuStaIn identifies genotypes from imaging alone, validating its ability to identify subtypes; further the technique reveals within-genotype heterogeneity. In Alzheimer’s disease, SuStaIn uncovers three subtypes, uniquely characterising their temporal complexity. SuStaIn provides fine-grained patient stratification, which substantially enhances the ability to predict conversion between diagnostic categories over standard models that ignore subtype ( p = 7.18 × 10 −4 ) or temporal stage ( p = 3.96 × 10 −5 ). SuStaIn offers new promise for enabling disease subtype discovery and precision medicine.

BACKGROUND: Frontotemporal dementia is a highly heritable neurodegenerative disorder. In about a third of patients, the disease is caused by autosomal dominant genetic mutations usually in one of three genes: progranulin (GRN), microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), or chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72). Findings from studies of other genetic dementias have shown neuroimaging and cognitive changes before symptoms onset, and we aimed to identify whether such changes could be shown in frontotemporal dementia. METHODS: We recruited participants to this multicentre study who either were known carriers of a pathogenic mutation in GRN, MAPT, or C9orf72, or were at risk of carrying a mutation because a first-degree relative was a known symptomatic carrier. We calculated time to expected onset as the difference between age at assessment and mean age at onset within the family. Participants underwent a standardised clinical assessment and neuropsychological battery. We did MRI and generated cortical and subcortical volumes using a parcellation of the volumetric T1-weighted scan. We used linear mixed-effects models to examine whether the association of neuropsychology and imaging measures with time to expected onset of symptoms differed between mutation carriers and non-carriers. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2012, and Sept 15, 2013, we recruited participants from 11 research sites in the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada. We analysed data from 220 participants: 118 mutation carriers (40 symptomatic and 78 asymptomatic) and 102 non-carriers. For neuropsychology measures, we noted the earliest significant differences between mutation carriers and non-carriers 5 years before expected onset, when differences were significant for all measures except for tests of immediate recall and verbal fluency. We noted the largest Z score differences between carriers and non-carriers 5 years before expected onset in tests of naming (Boston Naming Test -0·7; SE 0·3) and executive function (Trail Making Test Part B, Digit Span backwards, and Digit Symbol Task, all -0·5, SE 0·2). For imaging measures, we noted differences earliest for the insula (at 10 years before expected symptom onset, mean volume as a percentage of total intracranial volume was 0·80% in mutation carriers and 0·84% in non-carriers; difference -0·04, SE 0·02) followed by the temporal lobe (at 10 years before expected symptom onset, mean volume as a percentage of total intracranial volume 8·1% in mutation carriers and 8·3% in non-carriers; difference -0·2, SE 0·1). INTERPRETATION: Structural imaging and cognitive changes can be identified 5-10 years before expected onset of symptoms in asymptomatic adults at risk of genetic frontotemporal dementia. These findings could help to define biomarkers that can stage presymptomatic disease and track disease progression, which will be important for future therapeutic trials. FUNDING: Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration.