Nestor, Peter J.

ABSTRACTBackgroundProgressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a neuropathologically defined disease presenting with a broad spectrum of clinical phenotypes.ObjectiveTo identify clinical features and investigations that predict or exclude PSP pathology during life, aiming at an optimization of the clinical diagnostic criteria for PSP.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature published since 1996 to identify clinical features and investigations that may predict or exclude PSP pathology. We then extracted standardized data from clinical charts of patients with pathologically diagnosed PSP and relevant disease controls and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of key clinical features for PSP in this cohort.ResultsOf 4166 articles identified by the database inquiry, 269 met predefined standards. The literature review identified clinical features predictive of PSP, including features of the following 4 functional domains: ocular motor dysfunction, postural instability, akinesia, and cognitive dysfunction. No biomarker or genetic feature was found reliably validated to predict definite PSP. High‐quality original natural history data were available from 206 patients with pathologically diagnosed PSP and from 231 pathologically diagnosed disease controls (54 corticobasal degeneration, 51 multiple system atrophy with predominant parkinsonism, 53 Parkinson's disease, 73 behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia). We identified clinical features that predicted PSP pathology, including phenotypes other than Richardson's syndrome, with varying sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionsOur results highlight the clinical variability of PSP and the high prevalence of phenotypes other than Richardson's syndrome. The features of variant phenotypes with high specificity and sensitivity should serve to optimize clinical diagnosis of PSP. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

ABSTRACT Background : PSP is a neuropathologically defined disease entity. Clinical diagnostic criteria, published in 1996 by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke/Society for PSP, have excellent specificity, but their sensitivity is limited for variant PSP syndromes with presentations other than Richardson's syndrome. Objective : We aimed to provide an evidence‐ and consensus‐based revision of the clinical diagnostic criteria for PSP. Methods : We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and PSYCInfo databases for articles published in English since 1996, using postmortem diagnosis or highly specific clinical criteria as the diagnostic standard. Second, we generated retrospective standardized clinical data from patients with autopsy‐confirmed PSP and control diseases. On this basis, diagnostic criteria were drafted, optimized in two modified Delphi evaluations, submitted to structured discussions with consensus procedures during a 2‐day meeting, and refined in three further Delphi rounds. Results : Defined clinical, imaging, laboratory, and genetic findings serve as mandatory basic features, mandatory exclusion criteria, or context‐dependent exclusion criteria. We identified four functional domains (ocular motor dysfunction, postural instability, akinesia, and cognitive dysfunction) as clinical predictors of PSP. Within each of these domains, we propose three clinical features that contribute different levels of diagnostic certainty. Specific combinations of these features define the diagnostic criteria, stratified by three degrees of diagnostic certainty (probable PSP, possible PSP, and suggestive of PSP). Clinical clues and imaging findings represent supportive features. Conclusions : Here, we present new criteria aimed to optimize early, sensitive, and specific clinical diagnosis of PSP on the basis of currently available evidence. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Abstract Introduction A classification framework for posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) is proposed to improve the uniformity of definition of the syndrome in a variety of research settings. Methods Consensus statements about PCA were developed through a detailed literature review, the formation of an international multidisciplinary working party which convened on four occasions, and a Web‐based quantitative survey regarding symptom frequency and the conceptualization of PCA. Results A three‐level classification framework for PCA is described comprising both syndrome‐ and disease‐level descriptions. Classification level 1 (PCA) defines the core clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging features and exclusion criteria of the clinico‐radiological syndrome. Classification level 2 (PCA‐pure, PCA‐plus) establishes whether, in addition to the core PCA syndrome, the core features of any other neurodegenerative syndromes are present. Classification level 3 (PCA attributable to AD [PCA‐AD], Lewy body disease [PCA‐LBD], corticobasal degeneration [PCA‐CBD], prion disease [PCA‐prion]) provides a more formal determination of the underlying cause of the PCA syndrome, based on available pathophysiological biomarker evidence. The issue of additional syndrome‐level descriptors is discussed in relation to the challenges of defining stages of syndrome severity and characterizing phenotypic heterogeneity within the PCA spectrum. Discussion There was strong agreement regarding the definition of the core clinico‐radiological syndrome, meaning that the current consensus statement should be regarded as a refinement, development, and extension of previous single‐center PCA criteria rather than any wholesale alteration or redescription of the syndrome. The framework and terminology may facilitate the interpretation of research data across studies, be applicable across a broad range of research scenarios (e.g., behavioral interventions, pharmacological trials), and provide a foundation for future collaborative work.

Background and purposeThe European Federation of the Neurological Societies (EFNS) guidelines on the use of neuroimaging in the diagnosis and management of dementia are designed to revise and expand previous EFNS recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to provide an overview of the evidence for the use of neuroimaging techniques in non‐AD dementias, as well as general recommendations that apply to all types of dementia in clinical practice.MethodsThe task force working group reviewed evidence from original research articles, meta‐analyses and systematic reviews, published before April 2012. The evidence was classified, and consensus recommendations were given and graded according to the EFNS guidance regulations.ResultsStructural imaging, which should be performed at least once in the diagnostic work‐up of patients with cognitive impairment, serves to exclude other potentially treatable diseases, to recognize vascular lesions and to identify specific findings to help distinguish different forms of neurodegenerative types of dementia. Although typical cases of dementia may not benefit from routine functional imaging, these tools are recommended in those cases where diagnosis remains in doubt after clinical and structural imaging work‐up and in particular clinical settings. Amyloid imaging is likely to find clinical utility in several fields, including the stratification of patients with mild cognitive impairment into those with and without underlying AD and the evaluation of atypical AD presentations.ConclusionsA number of recommendations and good practice points are made to improve the diagnosis of AD and other dementias.