Josephs, Keith A.

Abstract Loss of facial recognition or prosopagnosia has been well-recognized for over a century. It has been categorized as developmental or acquired depending on whether the onset is in early childhood or beyond, and acquired cases can have degenerative or non-degenerative aetiologies. Prosopagnosia has been linked to involvement of the fusiform gyri, mainly in the right hemisphere. The literature on prosopagnosia comprises case reports and small case series. We aim to assess demographic, clinical and imaging characteristics and neurological and neuropathological disorders associated with a diagnosis of prosopagnosia in a large cohort. Patients were categorized as developmental versus acquired; those with acquired prosopagnosia were further subdivided into degenerative versus non-degenerative, based on neurological aetiology. We assessed regional involvement on [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-PET and MRI of the right and left frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital lobes. The Intake and Referral Center at the Mayo Clinic identified 487 patients with possible prosopagnosia, of which 336 met study criteria for probable or definite prosopagnosia. Ten patients, 80.0% male, had developmental prosopagnosia including one with Niemann–Pick type C and another with a forkhead box G1 gene mutation. Of the 326 with acquired prosopagnosia, 235 (72.1%) were categorized as degenerative, 91 (27.9%) as non-degenerative. The most common degenerative diagnoses were posterior cortical atrophy, primary prosopagnosia syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease dementia and semantic dementia, with each diagnosis accounting for >10% of this group. The most common non-degenerative diagnoses were infarcts (ischaemic and haemorrhagic), epilepsy-related and primary brain tumours, each accounting for >10%. We identified a group of patients with non-degenerative transient prosopagnosia in which facial recognition loss improved or resolved over time. These patients had migraine-related prosopagnosia, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, delirium, hypoxic encephalopathy and ischaemic infarcts. On [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, the temporal lobes proved to be the most frequently affected regions in 117 patients with degenerative prosopagnosia, while in 82 patients with non-degenerative prosopagnosia, MRI revealed the right temporal and right occipital lobes as most affected by a focal lesion. The most common pathological findings in those with degenerative prosopagnosia were frontotemporal lobar degeneration with hippocampal sclerosis and mixed Alzheimer’s and Lewy body disease pathology. In this large case series of patients diagnosed with prosopagnosia, we observed that facial recognition loss occurs across a wide range of acquired degenerative and non-degenerative neurological disorders, most commonly in males with developmental prosopagnosia. The right temporal and occipital lobes, and connecting fusiform gyrus, are key areas. Multiple different pathologies cause degenerative prosopagnosia.

Abstract Background Progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS) is characterized by difficulties with motor speech programming and planning. PAOS targets gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) microstructure that can be assessed using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and multishell applications, such as neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI). In this study, we aimed to apply DTI and NODDI to add further insight into PAOS tissue microstructure. Methods Twenty‐two PAOS patients and 26 age‐ and sex‐matched controls, recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo Clinic, underwent diffusion MRI on 3T MRI. Brain maps of fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) from DTI and intracellular volume fraction (ICVF) and isotropic volume fraction (IsoVF) from NODDI were generated. Global WM and GM, and specific WM tracts were identified using tractography and lobar GM regions. Results Global WM differences between PAOS and controls were greatest for ICVF, and global GM differences were greatest for MD and IsoVF. Abnormalities in key WM tracts involved in PAOS, including the body of the corpus callosum and frontal aslant tract, were identified with FA, MD, and ICVF, with excellent differentiation of PAOS from controls (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves >.90). MD and ICVF identified abnormalities in arcuate fasciculus, thalamic radiations, and corticostriatal tracts. Significant correlations were identified between an index of articulatory errors and DTI and NODDI metrics from the arcuate fasciculus, frontal aslant tract, and inferior longitudinal fasciculus. Conclusions DTI and NODDI represent different aspects of brain tissue microstructure, increasing the number of potential biomarkers for PAOS.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONThe implications of positive tau positron emission tomography (T) with negative beta amyloid positron emission tomography (A) are not well understood. We investigated cognitive performance in participants who were T+ but A‐.METHODSWe evaluated 98 participants from the Mayo Clinic who were T+ and A‐. Participants were matched 2:1 to A‐ and T‐ cognitively unimpaired (CU) controls. Cognitive test scores were compared between different groups.RESULTSThe A‐T+ group demonstrated lower performance than the A‐T‐ group on the Mini‐Mental Status Exam (MMSE) (p < 0.001), Wechsler Memory Scale‐Revised Logical Memory I (p < 0.001) and Logical Memory II (p < 0.001), Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) delayed recall (p = 0.004), category fluency (animals p = 0.005; vegetables p = 0.021), Trail Making Test A and B (p < 0.001), and others. There were no significant differences in demographic features or apolipoprotein E (APOE) e4 genotype between CU A‐T+ and CI A‐T+.DISCUSSIONA‐T+ participants show an association with lower cognitive performance.

AbstractBackgroundThe implications of a positive tau (T) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with a negative beta amyloid (A) PET are not well understood. We investigated cognitive performance in participants who were positive on tau PET but negative on beta amyloid PET.MethodWe evaluated 98 participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) and the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) who were positive for Flortaucipir (FTP) and negative for PiB PET. Participants were classified as A‐ and T+ based on Standardized Uptake Value Ratios (SUVr) of FTP and PiB PET scans, and were matched 2:1 to amyloid negative and tau negative cognitively unimpaired controls from the MCSA. Cognitive test scores were compared between the combined ADRC/MCSA group and MCSA only group. We also examined clinical diagnoses in our cohort. The most common were Alzheimer’s Disease, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) and Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) amongst others.ResultThere were no significant differences in demographic features or PiB SUVr between groups. There were significant differences in APOE genotype between groups. In the combined ADRC/MCSA group, 25% of A‐T‐ and 13% of A‐T+ were APOE e4 carriers (p = 0.016), and in the MCSA only group, 27% of A‐T‐and 10% of A‐T+ were APOE e4 carriers (p = 0.010). In the combined ADRC/MCSA group, the A‐T+ group demonstrated lower performance than the A‐T‐ group on the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) (p<0.001), Wechsler Memory Scale‐Revised Logical Memory I (p<0.001) and Logical Memory II (p<0.001), Auditory verbal Learning Test Delayed Recall (AVLT) (p = 0.004), Category fluency animals (p = 0.005), Category fluency vegetables (p = 0.021), Trailmaking test A (p<0.001), Trail making test B (p<0.001), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale‐IV (WAIS‐IV) (p = 0.002), and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS III) (p = 0.003). In the MCSA only group, the A‐T+ group had lower scores on Logical Memory II (p = 0.022), AVLT delated recall (p = 0.04), and WAIS‐R block design (p = 0.035) compared to the A‐T‐group.ConclusionPositive tau PET in the absence of beta‐amyloid positivity is associated with lower cognitive performance.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with a yes‐no reversal verbally and non‐verbally respond “yes” when they mean “no” and vice versa. They are typically aware of the error and able to correct it given additional time. This symptom commonly, but not exclusively, occurs in patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS). PPAOS is a form of frontotemporal dementia associated with hypometabolism in the supplementary motor area (SMA; e.g., Utianski et al., 2018); as the disease progresses, a wider network of frontal and subcortical regions become implicated. Behaviorally, this symptom seems to reflect poor response inhibition, but the specific anatomical underpinning is not yet understood. Given the brain regions known to be involved in PPAOS, we hypothesized that yes‐no reversals emerge due to degeneration of regions near the SMA and/or frontostriatal regions.MethodWe conducted an exploratory retrospective study of 28 patients who presented with PPAOS and had an FDG‐PET scan; 14 (50%) endorsed yes‐no reversals (see Table 1 for group characteristics). Clinically, AOS severity was measured using clinician ratings (0 = absent, 4 = severe) and frontal dysfunction was captured by the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI). We also measured median standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) in the SMA and pre‐SMA, as well as the head and body of the caudate with automated, in‐house software. The caudate ROI was selected based on visual comparison of the FDG‐PET scans between groups and the association between this region and inhibition during response interference (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2020).ResultNeither AOS severity nor hypometabolism in the pre‐SMA/SMA regions differed significantly between groups. In contrast, patients with a yes‐no reversal demonstrated significantly lower scores on the FAB and greater hypometabolism in the caudate body relative to patients without (see Figure 1).ConclusionResults suggest that yes‐no reversals relate to frontostriatal dysfunction rather than AOS severity or SMA activity in these patients. Further research is needed to address why a disproportionate number of patients with PPAOS develop this symptom.

AbstractBackgroundThe language and visual variants are two common clinical phenotypes of atypical Alzheimer’s disease (AD). There are reports of overlap between these clinical phenotypes, however, the extent and frequency of overlap, and its neuroanatomical underpinnings remain unclear.MethodEighty‐two patients with biomarker‐confirmed AD who presented with either predominant language (n = 34) or visuospatial/perceptual (n = 48) deficits were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group and underwent neurological and neuropsychological testing, MRI and [18F]flortaucipir‐PET. The clinical examination included testing for simultanagnosia, Gerstmann’s syndrome, ideomotor apraxia, visuospatial‐visuoperceptual function, confrontational naming, sentence repetition and letter and animal fluency. Cut‐points for abnormality were defined for each test and used to classify the following groups: language‐pure (no visual‐function deficit), language‐plus (impaired on one visual‐function), language‐mixed (impaired on two visual‐functions), visual‐pure (no language‐function deficit), visual‐plus (impaired on one language‐function) and visual‐mixed (impaired on two language‐functions). Patterns of relative volume loss and flortaucipir uptake were assessed using SPM12.ResultOf the 82 patients, 11 (13%) were language‐pure, 16 (20%) language‐plus, 7 (8%) language‐mixed, 10 (12%) visual‐pure, 17 (21%) visual‐plus and 21 (26%) visual‐mixed, with no difference in disease duration across groups. Visual deficits in the language‐plus group consisted of mild simultanagnosia in 29%, Gerstmann’s syndrome in 24%, and mild visuospatial deficits. In the language‐mixed group 86% had simultanagnosia and 43% had Gerstmann’s syndrome, with visuospatial‐visuoperceptual deficits comparable to the visual‐pure group. Language deficits in the visual‐plus group consisted of mild anomia and reduced letter and animal fluency. The visual‐mixed group reported naming and repetition deficits, and reduced fluency, comparable to the language‐predominant groups. All three language groups showed left temporal volume loss and flortaucipir uptake, with greater involvement of the parieto‐occipital and frontal lobes in language‐plus and language‐mixed groups. All three visual groups showed occipital volume loss and flortaucipir uptake, with greater involvement of the parieto‐temporal and frontal lobes in visual‐plus and visual‐mixed groups.ConclusionOnly 25% of our cohort showed a pure language or visual presentation, highlighting the high frequency of syndromic overlap in atypical AD and the diagnostic challenge of categorical phenotyping. Syndromic overlap was associated with neuroanatomical overlap and more widespread patterns of atrophy and tau deposition.

AbstractBackgroundPosterior cortical atrophy (PCA) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) show overlapping patterns of hypometabolism affecting posterior regions of the brain. Both syndromes show disruptions in functional connectivity, but it is unknown how patterns of disruption within and between networks compare between PCA and DLB.MethodThirty amyloid‐positive PCA, 27 amyloid‐positive DLB (DLB+), 24 amyloid‐negative DLB (DLB‐) patients and 30 cognitively normal amyloid‐negative (CN) individuals were recruited at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and underwent structural and resting state functional MRI. Spatially preprocessed data was analyzed using the CONN functional connectivity toolbox to explore nine networks: visual, sensorimotor, dorsal‐attention, cerebellar, frontoparietal, memory, language, salience, and default mode networks (DMN). Multivariate linear regression models corrected for multiple comparisons and adjusted for age and sex were fit to analyze within‐network connectivity (Fisher’s R‐to‐Z transformations). Between‐network connectivity was assessed with group level difference maps (two‐sample t‐test) corrected for false discovery rate at p<0.05.ResultMultivariate linear regression models showed reduced within‐network connectivity across all DMN components, sensorimotor, and dorsal‐attention networks, with trends for the visual network in PCA compared to CN. Both DLB‐ and DLB+ showed reduced within‐network connectivity for the cerebellar network, with DLB+ showing reduced connectivity in the posterior‐DMN, memory, and salience networks compared to CN. DLB‐ showed increased connectivity in dorsal‐attention and DMN, while DLB+ showing reduced connectivity in the memory network compared to PCA. Between‐network analysis showed an increase in cerebellar‐to‐sensorimotor connectivity in all three groups, with increase in cerebellar‐to‐dorsal‐attention connectivity in DLB‐ and PCA compared to CN. DLB‐ showed a decrease in posterior‐DMN‐to‐sensorimotor connectivity, while PCA showed reduced connectivity between all DMN components and dorsal‐attention‐to‐sensorimotor connectivity compared to CN. There was an increase in connectivity between all DMN components and a reduction in dorsal‐DMN‐to‐sensorimotor connectivity in both DLB‐ and DLB+ compared to PCA.ConclusionPCA was associated with connectivity disruptions across all DMN components, sensorimotor, dorsal‐attention and visual networks, while both DLB groups showed disruptions in cerebellar networks, with DLB+ showing further disruptions in posterior‐DMN, memory and salience networks. These findings suggest that both PCA and DLB have unique brain network disruptions, with amyloid status influencing connectivity in DLB.

AbstractBackgroundDisruption of default mode network (DMN) connectivity is common in Alzheimer’s disease. We investigated cross‐sectional and one‐year longitudinal changes in DMN sub‐systems in atypical clinical presentations of AD, in relation to age and tau.MethodSixty‐four amyloid‐positive atypical AD (Aty‐AD) patients diagnosed with posterior cortical atrophy (n = 35) or logopenic progressive aphasia (n = 29) were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group. Patients underwent structural and resting‐state functional MRI, and [18F]flortaucipir PET at baseline and one‐year follow‐up. 140 amyloid‐negative cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging were included as controls. Global tau SUVR was calculated in a meta‐ROI including parietal, temporal, and occipital regions. DMN connectivity was calculated in native space for posterior (pDMN), ventral (vDMN), anterior ventral (avDMN) and anterior dorsal (adDMN) DMN sub‐systems using the dual regression method. A global measure of DMN connectivity, the Network Failure Quotient (NFQ), was calculated as (vDMN_to_pDMN+ adDMN_to_pDMN)/(pDMN+vDMN). Linear mixed‐effects models were computed for each DMN connectivity measure, including diagnosis (Aty‐AD, CU), age, time and their interaction, and a per‐person random effect. SPM paired t‐tests were run to compare baseline and follow‐up images in Aty‐AD and CU separately. Linear mixed‐effect models were run in the Aty‐AD cohort only to investigate the effect of global baseline tau SUVR on each DMN connectivity measure.ResultMixed‐effects models showed evidence of lower cross‐sectional pDMN and higher adDMN connectivity in Aty‐AD relative to CU, with no significant time effects (Fig. 1). While connectivity in all DMN sub‐systems declined with age in CU, connectivity was higher in older Aty‐AD patients relative to younger, particularly in vDMN and pDMN. A similar trend was observed for NFQ, which was significantly higher in Aty‐AD, with a negative age effect (Fig. 1). In Aty‐AD, voxel‐based analyses showed moderate evidence of decline in vDMN connectivity and increase in avDMN connectivity over time (Fig. 2). Greater baseline global tau SUVR was associated with lower vDMN connectivity, cross‐sectionally and longitudinally (Fig. 3).ConclusionDMN connectivity was altered in Aty‐AD, with strongest alterations in younger patients. The vDMN declined over time, suggesting a shift in DMN connectivity with disease progression that was likely related to tau pathology.

AbstractBackgroundPosterior cortical atrophy (PCA) and logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) are atypical variants of Alzheimer’s disease which typically show different cross‐sectional patterns of atrophy and tau deposition. Patterns of atrophy remain distinct longitudinally. A direct comparison of rates of atrophy and tau accumulation between these syndromes has not yet been reported.MethodWe evaluated 20 PCA and 20 LPA patients; all were amyloid‐positive on [11C]PiB‐PET. Structural MRI and tau‐PET were performed at baseline and one‐year follow‐up. Annualized rates of change in grey matter volume (log Jacobians from tensor‐based morphometry) and flortaucipir‐PET SUVRs were calculated at the lobar level. A global tau SUVR was calculated using parietal, temporal, and occipital regions. Lobar rates were compared between PCA and LPA with linear models, accounting for education, sex, age, baseline global tau SUVR (for tau‐PET), with significance set at p = 0.05. SPM voxel‐level comparisons were performed, with the same covariates, with significance set at p = 0.001.ResultGroups did not differ in age, Apoe status, baseline global tau SUVR or whole brain volume, or their annualized rates of change. LPA had shorter disease duration. In the lobar models, PCA had faster rates of atrophy in the occipital lobe and there were no significant differences on rates of tau accumulation, but a trend for LPA having faster rates of tau accumulation in all lobes. Baseline global tau SUVR was negatively associated with rate of tau accumulation in parietal and temporal lobes. Age was negatively associated with rates of tau accumulation in frontal, temporal and occipital lobes and with rates of atrophy in frontal and parietal lobes. Voxel‐level analysis confirmed these results, with PCA showing faster rates of occipital atrophy, and LPA showing subtle evidence for diffuse faster rates of tau accumulation (Figure 1).ConclusionLongitudinal patterns of neuroimaging abnormalities differ between PCA and LPA, although with divergent results for tau accumulation and atrophy that may reflect differences in disease stage. Rates of change are strongly influenced by age and severity of baseline tau, with faster rates of tau accumulation in patients with younger age and lower baseline tau deposition.

AbstractBackgroundThe spectrum of what is referred to as nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia includes patients with isolated apraxia of speech (PPAOS), progressive agrammatic aphasia (PAA), or a combination thereof (AOS‐PAA). When AOS is present, there is typically an underlying 4R tauopathy (corticobasal degeneration; progressive supranuclear palsy); isolated PAA is more often associated with a 3R tauopathy (Pick’s disease). While pathological studies confirm the clinical syndrome is the sequela of these proteinopathies, beta‐amyloid (Aβ) deposition has also been observed. Given the growing number of treatment options, it is important to better understand the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in PPAOS‐PAA spectrum disorders.Methods65 patients recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic underwent Aβ‐PET imaging using Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) and tau‐PET imaging with [18F]flortaucipir at the same visit (PPAOS = 23; PAA = 6; AOS‐PAA = 36). A global PiB SUVR (standardized uptake value ratio)≥1.48 and temporal lobe tau meta‐ROI SUVR≥1.25 were deemed Aβ and tau positive, respectively. The incidence of Aβ and tau positivity and clinical‐demographic profiles were compared among groups.ResultsThere was no difference in age, sex, APOE status, tau/Aβ positivity or PET SUVRs across clinical groups (Table 1). Patients differed on indices of aphasia and AOS severity, in concordance with group membership; there was no difference on a memory measure. Eight patients (12%) were both Aβ and tau positive (indicative of the presence of AD), with an additional 20 patients (31%) positive on only one biomarker (Table 1). Of the eight Aβ and tau positive patients, seven had AOS (six prosodic predominant AOS). Aβ more than tau SUVRs increased with age and were related to each other (Figure 1).ConclusionsAβ and tau positivity is not uncommon in AOS and/or PAA patients, particularly in older patients. Enrollment criteria for Aβ or tau targeted pharmacological trials should consider concordance of biological variables and clinical presentations, rather than simply biological biomarkers. Alternatively, if such patients are enrolled, the outcome measures should reflect the clinical impairments, as it is not yet known if or how concomitant AD influences the clinical presentation.