Helenius, Joanna

Objectives: Identification of gene variants of stroke subtypes is important for the development of tailored ischemic stroke therapies among various ethnic groups. Valid and reliable determination of ischemic stroke subtype is essential for achieving this goal and to standardize a classification scheme across multi-center studies and different populations. Causative Classification System for Ischemic Stroke (CCS) is a novel computerized subclassification tool developed to improve reliability and accuracy of classifying stroke types. The CCS algorithm relies on both phenotypic and causative stroke variables. A Hispanic subset of the SiGN, an important and distinct target population with greater risk of certain stroke subtypes, was evaluated with Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) and CCS and the agreement between the two classification systems was analyzed. Methods: Over 6000 subjects at 15 sites across US and Europe were enrolled, with TOAST and CCS locally adjudicated. Blood collection and central data quality control (10% central readjudication) were performed on all participants. A subset of Hispanics was analyzed for the purpose of this study and the agreement between the TOAST and CCS were assessed by kappa statistic. Findings: Hispanics (n=595, 10.9%) compared to non-Hispanics (n=5457) were more likely to be younger (63.7 vs. 64.0), male (55% vs. 46%) and have fewer of the traditional stroke risk factors HTN (54% vs. 64%), Afib (11% vs. 14%), DM(23% vs. 25%), CAD(16% vs. 20%) and smoking(19% vs. 22%). While the TOAST showed no differences between stroke subtypes for Hispanic vs. non-Hispanics, in CCS, Hispanics were classified with more of large vessel (22% vs. 20%), cardioembolic (37% vs. 30%) and small vessel strokes (13% vs. 9%) and fewer with undetermined etiology (28% vs. 40%) as compared to non-Hispanics. TOAST and CCS offered moderate correlation across all stroke types in Hispanics: kappa of 0.66 for large artery atherosclerosis, 0.58 for cardioembolic, and 0.58 for small artery occlusion. Conclusion: CCS offers a more sensitive and accurate system for subphenotyping of strokes in Hispanics who tended to have relatively fewer risk factors and unclassified strokes. Further studies correlating the two classification systems and their relation to genotyping data are warranted.

Background: The Stroke Genetics Network (SiGN) funded by the NINDS aims to identify genetic risk factors in ischemic stroke using whole-genome association studies (GWAS). High quality phenotyping is crucial to successful application of GWAS. As a heterogenous disorder, stroke poses specific challenges. The Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) classification is a broadly used, but its validity is challenged especially when performed by multiple investigators with differing interpretations of the system. The Causative Classification System for Ischemic Stroke (CCS) system is a new, web-based, and computerized algorithm that integrates clinical, diagnostic, and etiologic stroke characteristics in an evidence-based manner ( ccs.mgh.harvard.edu ) to generate subtypes. Methods: In planning the SiGN proposal, a sample of 20 coded charts were collected from a subset of participating studies to assess feasibility of central adjudication and comparability to study-specific TOAST. Two central adjudicators reviewed all records and generated TOAST and CCS subtypes. These were compared to study-specific TOAST subtype and the CCS phenotype generated for SiGN by local trained adjudicators. CCS data is now available for 7134 included cases using both a 5 and a 7 category system as defined in the table . Results: All 4 phenotypes were available for 115 ischemic stroke cases from 6 studies in SiGN. Basic demographics were 54% women, 63% white, and median age between 65-74. Table 1 provides the agreement between the various subtypes. Table 2 describes the types of disagreement. Conclusions: Central adjudication with only two adjudicators and curated medical records yielded more consistent subtyping independent of phenotyping system. The agreement for TOAST was higher than published rates by independent groups (∼0.50). In contrast, the agreement for CCS was lower than previously published (0.85-0.95). Site adjudicators' familiarity with TOAST and inexperience with CCS may contribute. Although CCS is an automated algorithm and has a number of user friendly features, our findings suggest that formal training and certification process before starting to use CCS may be worthwhile to achieve optimal benefit from the system.