Citations

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe, compare, and understand speech modulation capabilities of patients with varying motor speech disorders (MSDs) in a paradigm in which patients made highly cued attempts to speak faster or slower. Method: Twenty-nine patients, 12 with apraxia of speech (AOS; four phonetic and eight prosodic subtype), eight with dysarthria (six hypokinetic and two spastic subtype), and nine patients without any neurogenic MSD completed a standard motor speech evaluation where they were asked to repeat words and sentences, which served as their “natural” speaking rate. They were then asked to repeat lower complexity (counting 1–5; repeating “cat” and “catnip” 3 times each) and higher complexity stimuli (repeating “catastrophe” and “stethoscope” 3 times each and “My physician wrote out a prescription” once) as fast/slow as possible. Word durations and interword intervals were measured. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess differences related to MSD subtype and stimuli complexity on bidirectional rate modulation capacity as indexed by word duration and interword interval. Articulatory accuracy was also judged and compared. Results: Patients with prosodic AOS demonstrated a reduced ability to go faster; while they performed similarly to patients with spastic dysarthria when counting, patients with spastic dysarthria were able to increase rate similar to controls during sentence repetition; patients with prosodic AOS could not and made increased articulatory errors attempting to increase rate. AOS patients made more articulatory errors relative to other groups, regardless of condition; however, their percentage of errors reduced with an intentionally slowed speaking rate. Conclusions: The findings suggest comparative rate modulation abilities in conjunction with their impact on articulatory accuracy may support differential diagnosis between healthy and abnormal speech and among subtypes of MSDs (i.e., type of dysarthria or AOS). Findings need to be validated in a larger, more representative cohort encompassing several types of MSDs. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22044632

Purpose: Prior studies have shown that communication-related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment or objective indices of symptom severity. Although there is a growing body of literature documenting that discrepancies between patients with dementia and their care partners' perception of participation restrictions exist, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions specifically match or diverge from the patients' experiences, which may inform the use of care partner proxy in the context of degenerative diseases. Method: Thirty-eight patients with progressive neurologic conditions (progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and primary progressive aphasia or apraxia of speech) and, in most instances, focal cognitive-communication disorders were included. The patients and their accompanying care partners independently completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank, short form, a 10-question survey about communication participation restrictions in different contexts. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's experience. The difference between patient and care partner total scores were calculated and analyzed relative to clinical and demographic variables of interest. Results: Care partner ratings modestly tracked with patient experience and objective indices of symptom severity but did not exactly match patient ratings. The presence of aphasia increased, but did not fully account for, the likelihood of a discrepancy between care partner and patient ratings. Conclusion: Although careful consideration should be given prior to using care-partner report as a proxy for patient experience, it is worthwhile to include care partner ratings as a means of supporting conversations about differing perceptions, guiding joint intervention planning, and monitoring care-partner perceptions of change along with the implementation of supported conversation strategies.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the interrater reliability and validity of the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale (ASRS-3.5) as an index of the presence and severity of apraxia of speech (AOS) and the prominence of several of its important features. Method: Interrater reliability was assessed for 27 participants. Validity was examined in a cohort of 308 participants (120 with and 188 without progressive AOS) through item analysis; item-Total score correlations; correlations among ASRS Total score and component subscores and independent clinical ratings of AOS, dysarthria and aphasia severity, intelligibility, and articulatory errors, as well as years postonset and age; and regression models assessing item and Total score prediction of AOS presence. Results: Interrater reliability was good or excellent for most items and excellent for the Total score. Item and Total score analyses revealed good separation of participants with versus without AOS. Inter-item and item-Total score correlations were generally moderately high as were correlations between the ASRS Total score and independent ratings of AOS severity, intelligibility, and articulatory errors. The Total score was not meaningfully correlated with ratings of aphasia and dysarthria severity, years postonset, or age. Total scores below 7 and above 10 revealed excellent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for AOS. The presence of eight or more abnormal features was also highly predictive of AOS presence. Conclusions: The ASRS-3.5 is a reliable and valid scale for identifying the presence and severity of AOS and its predominant features. It has excellent sensitivity to AOS presence and excellent specificity relative to aphasia and dysarthria in patients with neurodegenerative disease. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21817584

AbstractBackgroundQuantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can detect iron distribution in the brain by estimating the local tissue magnetic susceptibility of every voxel. Dysregulation of neuronal iron has been correlated with typical Alzheimer’s disease (tAD), but little is known about iron distribution in atypical clinical presentations of AD such as logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA).MethodEleven PCA patients and eight LPA patients were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and underwent MRI that included a five‐echo gradient echo sequence for calculation of QSM. Mean QSM signal was extracted from gray and white matter for regions‐of‐interest across the brain using the Mayo Clinic Adult Lifespan Template. Hierarchical models were fit per‐region and per‐hemisphere to compare PCA and LPA to each other, to 20 healthy controls, and to 20 patients with tAD recruited by the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center.ResultStrong evidence (posterior probability>0.99) was observed for greater susceptibility in the left middle occipital gyrus and amygdala in both LPA and PCA, and in the right precuneus and inferior temporal gyrus in PCA compared to controls. Moderate evidence for greater susceptibility (posterior probability>0.90) was also observed in the left insula, inferior occipital gyrus, entorhinal cortex, and right inferior parietal gyrus and amygdala in both LPA and PCA, along with right angular gyrus and middle occipital gyrus in PCA and right insula and caudate in LPA, when compared to controls. Comparing between phenotypes, LPA showed moderate evidence for greater susceptibility in the caudate, hippocampus, substantia nigra, left supramarginal gyrus and posterior cingulate compared to PCA, while PCA showed greater susceptibility in the right precuneus compared to LPA. Both LPA and PCA showed moderate‐strong evidence for greater susceptibility than tAD, particularly in medial and lateral parietal regions.ConclusionUnique iron profiles were identified in LPA and PCA within cortical and subcortical structures. These changes are in line with disease‐related neurodegenerative changes in the clinical phenotypes, suggesting that QSM could be an informative marker to study iron deposition in these patients.

AbstractPrior studies have shown communication‐related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment of symptom severity. Relatedly, there is a growing body of literature documenting discrepancies between patients with dementia and care partner perception of participation restrictions. However, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions match or diverge from the patient's experience, which was the topic of this study.Toward that end, 28 patients with apraxia of speech and/or dysarthria associated with primary progressive apraxia of speech, nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia, or progressive supranuclear palsy, all types of frontotemporal dementia, were seen for speech‐language examinations. The patients and their care partners were asked to independently complete the Communication Participation Item Bank (CPIB), short form, which is a 10‐question survey about communication in different contexts; higher scores reflect less interference from their condition on communication. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's restrictions. The total CPIB score (maximum 30) and difference scores were calculated and visualized.The data (Figure) suggest mismatches exist in care partner and patient ratings of communication participation restrictions. Of 28 patients, only 1 pair had identical scores, each rating severe interference in all communication contexts. 57% of patients rated communication as less impacted (higher scores) compared to their family member, leaving 39% of family members rating communication as less impacted than their loved one's perception. This study lays the foundation for future research to include patient and care partner ratings when examining the benefit of impairment‐based therapy, utilization of compensatory speech strategies, effectiveness of such strategies, and impact of other augmentative or alternative means of communication. The CPIB may be useful to document reduced psychosocial impact of disease and diminished burden and burnout on care partners with different intervention options. Future studies will explore possible differences between FTD phenotypes and, more specifically, whether 1) the motor speech disorder (MSD) disorder is primary or secondary to other motor impairment, 2) the nature or severity of the MSD, or 3) concomitant cognitive‐communication impairment predict the existence of and/or direction of a discrepancy.

AbstractBackgroundQuantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can detect iron distribution in the brain by estimating the local tissue magnetic susceptibility of every voxel. Dysregulation of neuronal iron has been correlated with typical Alzheimer’s disease (tAD), but little is known about iron distribution in atypical clinical presentations of AD such as logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA).MethodEleven PCA patients and eight LPA patients were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and underwent MRI that included a five‐echo gradient echo sequence for calculation of QSM. Mean QSM signal was extracted from gray and white matter for regions‐of‐interest across the brain using the Mayo Clinic Adult Lifespan Template. Hierarchical models were fit per‐region and per‐hemisphere to compare PCA and LPA to each other, to 20 healthy controls, and to 20 patients with tAD recruited by the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center.ResultStrong evidence (posterior probability>0.99) was observed for greater susceptibility in the left middle occipital gyrus and amygdala in both LPA and PCA, and in the right precuneus and inferior temporal gyrus in PCA compared to controls. Moderate evidence for greater susceptibility (posterior probability>0.90) was also observed in the left insula, inferior occipital gyrus, entorhinal cortex, and right inferior parietal gyrus and amygdala in both LPA and PCA, along with right angular gyrus and middle occipital gyrus in PCA and right insula and caudate in LPA, when compared to controls. Comparing between phenotypes, LPA showed moderate evidence for greater susceptibility in the caudate, hippocampus, substantia nigra, left supramarginal gyrus and posterior cingulate compared to PCA, while PCA showed greater susceptibility in the right precuneus compared to LPA. Both LPA and PCA showed moderate‐strong evidence for greater susceptibility than tAD, particularly in medial and lateral parietal regions.ConclusionUnique iron profiles were identified in LPA and PCA within cortical and subcortical structures. These changes are in line with disease‐related neurodegenerative changes in the clinical phenotypes, suggesting that QSM could be an informative marker to study iron deposition in these patients.

Abstract The prognostic relevance of diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is unknown. Hence, we sought to evaluate the impact of DTI on outcomes in MCL using 3 large datasets (1) the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource, (2) patients enrolled in the ALL Age Asthma Cohort/CALGB 50403, and (3) a multisitecohort of patients with MCL. Patients were a priori divided into 2 groups, 0 to 14 days (short DTI) and 15 to 60 days (long DTI). The patients in whom observation was deemed appropriate were excluded. One thousand ninety-seven patients newly diagnosed with MCL and available DTI were included in the study. The majority (73%) had long DTI (n=797). Patients with short DTI had worse eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS ≥2), higher lactate dehydrogenase, bone marrow involvement, more frequent B symptoms, higher MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI ≥6.2), and were less likely to receive intensive induction therapy than long DTI group. The median progression-free survival (2.5 years vs 4.8 years, p<0.0001) and overall survival (7.8 years vs. 11.8 years, p<0.0001) were significantly inferior in the short DTI group than the long DTI cohort and remained significant for progression-free survival and overall survival in multivariable analysis. We show that the DTI is an important prognostic factor in patients newly diagnosed with MCL and is strongly associated with adverse clinical factors and poor outcomes. DTI should be reported in all the patients newly diagnosed with MCL who are enrolling in clinical trials and steps must be taken to ensure selection bias is avoided.