Crutch, Sebastian J.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONDelay in diagnosis of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) syndrome is common, and the lack of familiarity with assessment tools for identifying visual cortical dysfunction is a contributing factor. We propose recommendations for the approach to the evaluation of PCA clinical features during the office visit, the neuropsychological evaluation, and the research setting. A recommended screening battery for eye clinics is also proposed.METHODSRecommendations were developed using results from a web‐based survey of members of Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART) Atypical Alzheimer's Disease Professional Interest Area (PIA), literature review, and consensus by the PCA assessment working party of the Atypical Alzheimer's Disease PIA.RESULTSSurvey results revealed robust agreement for assessment tool preferences for PCA features, and many respondents indicated that they reserve assessment tools for use only when PCA is suspected. For some PCA features, curated tools were preferred over validated battery tools, particularly for the office visit. Consensus recommendations superseded survey preferences for two core cognitive features within the 2017 PCA diagnostic criteria.DISCUSSIONThese consensus recommendations provide an evaluation framework for PCA clinical features and can facilitate timely and accurate recognition and diagnosis of PCA. Broader use of these tools should be sought, and development and validation of novel PCA clinical outcome assessments are needed to improve our understanding of atypical AD and other dementias and support the inclusion of those with PCA in treatment trials.

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.

Abstract During the past decade, a conceptual shift occurred in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) considering the disease as a continuum. Thanks to evolving biomarker research and substantial discoveries, it is now possible to identify the disease even at the preclinical stage before the occurrence of the first clinical symptoms. This preclinical stage of AD has become a major research focus as the field postulates that early intervention may offer the best chance of therapeutic success. To date, very little evidence is established on this “silent” stage of the disease. A clarification is needed about the definitions and lexicon, the limits, the natural history, the markers of progression, and the ethical consequence of detecting the disease at this asymptomatic stage. This article is aimed at addressing all the different issues by providing for each of them an updated review of the literature and evidence, with practical recommendations.

AbstractIntroductionThe genetics underlying posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), typically a rare variant of Alzheimer's disease (AD), remain uncertain.MethodsWe genotyped 302 PCA patients from 11 centers, calculated risk at 24 loci for AD/DLB and performed an exploratory genome‐wide association study.ResultsWe confirm that variation in/near APOE/TOMM40 (P = 6 × 10−14) alters PCA risk, but with smaller effect than for typical AD (PCA: odds ratio [OR] = 2.03, typical AD: OR = 2.83, P = .0007). We found evidence for risk in/near CR1 (P = 7 × 10−4), ABCA7 (P = .02) and BIN1 (P = .04). ORs at variants near INPP5D and NME8 did not overlap between PCA and typical AD. Exploratory genome‐wide association studies confirmed APOE and identified three novel loci: rs76854344 near CNTNAP5 (P = 8 × 10−10 OR = 1.9 [1.5–2.3]); rs72907046 near FAM46A (P = 1 × 10−9 OR = 3.2 [2.1–4.9]); and rs2525776 near SEMA3C (P = 1 × 10−8, OR = 3.3 [2.1–5.1]).DiscussionWe provide evidence for genetic risk factors specifically related to PCA. We identify three candidate loci that, if replicated, may provide insights into selective vulnerability and phenotypic diversity in AD.

Abstract Posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) is a clinicoradiologic syndrome characterized by progressive decline in visual processing skills, relatively intact memory and language in the early stages, and atrophy of posterior brain regions. Misdiagnosis of PCA is common, owing not only to its relative rarity and unusual and variable presentation, but also because patients frequently first seek the opinion of an ophthalmologist, who may note normal eye examinations by their usual tests but may not appreciate cortical brain dysfunction. Seeking to raise awareness of the disease, stimulate research, and promote collaboration, a multidisciplinary group of PCA research clinicians formed an international working party, which had its first face‐to‐face meeting on July 13, 2012 in Vancouver, Canada, prior to the Alzheimer's Association International Conference.