Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

May 18, 2010; 74 (20) Articles

Clinical staging and disease progression in frontotemporal dementia

E. Mioshi, S. Hsieh, S. Savage, M. Hornberger, J.R. Hodges
First published May 17, 2010, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e04070
E. Mioshi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Hsieh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Savage
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Hornberger
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J.R. Hodges
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Clinical staging and disease progression in frontotemporal dementia
E. Mioshi, S. Hsieh, S. Savage, M. Hornberger, J.R. Hodges
Neurology May 2010, 74 (20) 1591-1597; DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e04070

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
3737

Share

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to develop a novel tool capable of staging disease severity in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) based upon functional dependence and behavioral changes, and to assess change over time in the 3 main FTD variants (behavioral variant FTD [bvFTD]; progressive nonfluent aphasia [PNFA]; and semantic dementia [SemD]).

Methods: The Frontotemporal Dementia Rating Scale (FRS) was developed in a validation cohort of 77 consecutive clinic attendees (bvFTD = 29; PNFA = 20; SemD = 28) and applied to an independent sample of 75 patients (bvFTD = 28; PNFA = 21; SemD = 26) to establish intergroup differences. Assessments from 42 patients followed up after 12 months were used to determine annual progression. Finally, a combined sample (n = 152) was used to determine length of symptoms in each severity category.

Results: Six severity stages were identified and operationalized based upon a 30-item questionnaire (very mild to profound). The cross-sectional study revealed much greater levels of impairment in bvFTD than in the language variants, with limited correlation with general cognitive measures. Patients with SemD showed the closest association between length of symptoms and stage, taking, on average, 10 years to reach the severe stage. Patients with bvFTD appear to move most quickly between stages and patients with PNFA were intermediate. The FRS was capable of detecting functional deterioration in all 3 variants over 12 months.

Conclusions: Disease progression differs across frontotemporal dementia (FTD) variants. Patients with behavioral variant FTD progress rapidly whereas those with semantic dementia progress more slowly. The Frontotemporal Dementia Rating Scale can aid in staging and determining disease progression. Length of symptoms and global cognitive assessments alone do not reflect disease severity and progression in FTD.

Glossary

ACE-R=
Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised;
AD=
Alzheimer disease;
ADL=
activities of daily living;
ANOVA=
analysis of variance;
bvFTD=
behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia;
CBI=
Cambridge Behavioral Inventory;
CDR=
Clinical Dementia Rating Scale;
DAD=
Disability Assessment for Dementia;
FRS=
Frontotemporal Dementia Rating Scale;
FTD=
frontotemporal dementia;
FTLD=
frontotemporal lobar degeneration;
PCA=
principal component analysis;
PNFA=
progressive nonfluent aphasia;
SemD=
semantic dementia.

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to 3 distinctive clinical syndromes with heterogeneous neuropathology: behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD), semantic dementia (SemD), and progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA).1 bvFTD patients present with marked change in personality and social conduct,2 whereas symptoms in SemD and PNFA remain language related, at least initially.3-6 Recent studies have established that FTD impacts considerably on everyday activities, which cannot be attributed to language deficits even in those with SemD and PNFA.7 These changes in behavior, language, and functional abilities lead to progressive disability7-10 and, consequently, high levels of stress and burden on carers.11-13

There is no consistent method of determining disease stage or severity in FTD. Clinicians may use a combination of cognitive, behavioral, imaging, and activities of daily living (ADL)–based data. To complicate matters, patients with FTD present at different stages in terms of severity of dementia but these stages have not been well-defined to date. Moreover, no tool has yet been developed that is capable of delineating the stages of FTD severity, or its rate of disease progression. The majority of the FTD studies have relied on Alzheimer disease (AD) staging tools,9,14,15 such as the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR).16 An adapted CDR (FTLD-modified CDR) was recently developed for use in clinical trials,17 and showed superior ability to the standard CDR. The modified CDR, however, did not detect differences between FTD subgroups, or rates of progression in each variant.

The objectives of this study were to 1) identify stages or levels of dementia across the 3 main clinical variants of FTD using a novel staging tool, the Frontotemporal Dementia Rating Scale (FRS); 2) identify annual rate of decline in the FRS; and 3) investigate the relationship between length of symptoms and FRS stages.

METHODS

Patient criteria.

Patients were included if they 1) fulfilled criteria for FTD1; 2) had an informant who could give a reliable account of the patient's routine; 3) had no physical disability that could confound assessment of activities of daily living; 4) had absence of major depression as assessed by a psychiatrist; and 5) had undergone an Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R)18 and a CDR16 within 60 days of the functional assessment (patients were included irrespective of ACE-R scores). All patients underwent MRI scan and were excluded if they had evidence of significant cerebrovascular disease (infarcts or confluent white matter change). Cognitive testing was given by a senior research nurse or a research assistant. All patients were assessed by an experienced research occupational therapist (E.M.) and a senior behavioral neurologist (J.R.H.) at the research clinics in Cambridge or Sydney. Diagnoses were made on the basis of a multidisciplinary consensus (neurologist, neuropsychiatrist, and neuropsychologist), and measures described here were not included in the diagnostic process. Patients with clinical symptoms of bvFTD but without brain atrophy or progression, so called phenocopy cases, were also excluded.19-21 Duration of disease was estimated by onset of symptoms as reported by the informant at the time of diagnosis. Note that in Cambridge and Sydney we have used the general label FTD to encompass all variants described above (bvFTD, SemD, PNFA), rather than frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD).4,22-23

An initial cohort of 77 patients with FTD was used to develop the FRS, as shown in figure 1 (sample 1). For this analysis the ratings on each FRS question were based on existent data from the Cambridge Behavioral Inventory (CBI)24 and the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD).25 An independent sample of 75 patients with FTD (sample 2: bvFTD = 28; SemD = 26; PNFA = 21) were included in the analysis. For the analysis of annual change, we used a subgroup of 42 patients with baseline and 1-year follow-up assessments (sample 3). Sample 2 and 3 caregivers were interviewed by an occupational therapist (E.M.) or neurologist (J.R.H.) who administered the FRS. Finally, to investigate the impact of the length of symptoms on FRS staging, we combined 2 sets of data: the sample that validated the scale (n = 77) and the sample mentioned above (n = 75), resulting in 152 patient assessments (sample 4).

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 1 Illustrative representation of the 4 samples used in the analyses

bvFTD = behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia; PNFA = progressive nonfluent aphasia; SemDem = semantic dementia.

Controls.

Twenty age-matched controls (10 male and 10 female) were recruited at the MRC Cognition and Brain Science Unit, Cambridge, UK (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 1 Demographics (SD), length of disease, and ACE-R scores of FTD patient subgroups and controls (n = 95)

Instruments.

FRS.

A total of 77 patients with FTD were included (sample 1: bvFTD = 29; SemD = 28; PNFA = 20), following the same inclusion criteria reported in Methods. The 77 patients represented a consecutive sample assessed in Cambridge. Patients were matched for age and length of disease (table e-1 on the Neurology® Web site at www.neurology.org). We intended to create a staging scale specific for FTD, capable of characterizing disease severity and nuances of change with disease, avoiding the floor effects inherent in standard cognitive tests. These can be misleading in moderate patients, especially those with language problems.

A total of 75 questions were initially identified from the CBI and DAD,25 which had previously been shown to capture the behavioral changes and impairment in ADLs that characterize FTD syndromes.7,24 Rasch modeling26 was applied to the set of 75 questions in 77 patients (sample 1). Rasch analysis converts ordinal raw data to interval measures, placing questions and patients along the same hierarchy.27,28 In other words, Rasch analysis ranks patients according to their level of ability (from able to disabled), while examining the hierarchy of questions according to their level of complexity (from difficult to easy). In this way it identifies which questions best describe patient capacity based on the whole sample, eliminating those questions that do not capture the sample characteristics as a continuum.

The Rasch analysis was conducted iteratively until the initial 75 items were reduced to a smaller set that would demonstrate construct validity, unidimensionality, and good internal reliability. To verify construct validity, items were excluded if they failed to fit recommended limits of infit and outfit values (MNSQ = 0.60 to 1.49 and Z = −2 to 2).

The resulting scale comprises 30 questions. Mean infit statistics (M = 1.01; Z = 0.0, SD = 0.8) and outfit statistics (M = 0.94; Z = 0.0, SD = 0.7) confirmed that, overall, this choice of items produced a smooth continuum without outliers.27

To verify unidimensionality, which is a trait that assures that the scale is measuring one construct only, in this case disease severity, a principal component analysis (PCA) of the residuals was performed. This produced good Eigen values for the 5 contrasts (1.8–3.5). The raw variance explained was 46.4%, which was very close to the desired 50%.27 Further comparison of positive and negative loaded variables confirmed the unidimensionality of the scale.

Test consistency was 0.93, almost reaching the desirable Cronbach α = 0.95.29 The item separation index of the scale was 3.68, which was close to the desired level of 3.0.28 Interrater test reliability was conducted on a subsample of 23 patients, whose FRSs were scored by 4 independent raters (94 ratings). The intraclass reliability coefficient was 0.994 (absolute agreement), with figures closer to 1 demonstrating high agreement.

In the resultant scale, a score of 30 denotes full functional ability and no behavior change, whereas lower scores denote decline in everyday abilities and marked behavior change. Item difficulty is shown in figure e-1. Item difficulty was defined by logit values, with higher logit values representing more difficult items.

Once a score is obtained, it has to be converted to a percentage (raw score/number of applicable questions). This step avoids gender or cultural bias, respecting a patient's premorbid abilities (e.g., no points are lost if the person has never managed finances or if cooking was not part of his or her routine prior to disease onset). This percentage score is then checked against a logit table, where a logit score is obtained. This step aids in spreading the patients across the different severity categories. Logit scores were subdivided into 6 equal categories to facilitate clinical interpretation: very mild (>4.12), mild (4.11 to 1.92), moderate (1.91 to −0.40), severe (−0.39 to −2.58), very severe (−2.57 to −4.99), and profound (below −4.99). Higher scores on the FRS denote higher functioning.

The FRS is available for free download via the Frontier Web site (http://www.ftdrg.org).

ACE-R.

The ACE-R assesses 5 cognitive domains: attention/orientation, memory, verbal fluency, and language and visuospatial abilities. The total score is 100; higher scores reflect better ability. The ACE-R was designed to be sensitive to early stages of dementia, and incorporates the MMSE. Not all patients could perform an ACE-R due to disease severity (n = 56).

CDR.

The CDR16 is a clinical staging instrument of dementia that combines 6 domains of cognitive and functional performance: memory, orientation, judgment and problem solving, community affairs, home and hobbies, and personal care. An algorithm allows the calculation of a total score; a score of zero reflects no dementia and higher scores denote greater impairment. Not all patients had a CDR administered (n = 53).

Standard protocol approvals, registrations, and patient consents.

The study was approved by the Addenbrooke's Hospital Ethics Committee in Cambridge and the South Eastern Sydney/Illawara Area Health Service in Sydney. Patient or family consent was obtained from each participant.

Statistical analysis.

Data were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). A priori, variables were plotted and checked for normal distribution by Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. Parametric demographic data (age, education), as well as scores on the FRS, were compared via one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey HSD post hoc tests. Correlations between the FRS, cognitive assessments, CDR, and length of symptoms were done via Spearman correlation because ACE-R and MMSE scores were not normally distributed for PNFA and bvFTD. Change on FRS scores was analyzed using t tests.

RESULTS

Profiles of FTD variants on the FRS.

Data from 75 patients with FTD were used to compare profiles across clinical variants (bvFTD = 28; SemD = 26; PNFA = 21). As shown in the table 1, the patient groups were well-matched for age and length of disease.

Profiles of impairment according to logit scores are shown in figure 2A. A one-way ANOVA identified a group effect (F = 12.509, df = 74, p < 0.001) and post hoc tests revealed that the bvFTD group scored lower than the SemD (p < 0.001) and PNFA groups (p < 0.05), with no difference between the 2 language variants. For controls, mean logit staging score was 5.07 (SD = 0.56).

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 2 Profile of disease severity for behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA), and semantic dementia (SemDem), and rate of annual change

(A) Profile of disease severity for bvFTD (n = 29), PNFA (n = 20), and SemDem (n = 28). Dotted line represents control mean score − 2 SD. Means and SEM are shown (p = 0.005). (B) Rate of annual change for bvFTD (n = 17), PNFA (n = 10), and SemDem (n = 15). Change was significant for all 3 groups (p < 0.005).

We also examined the groups according to their distribution of severity scores.

As shown in figure 3A, virtually all patients with bvFTD fell within the moderate, severe, very severe, or profound categories, whereas for the PNFA and SemD groups 25% fell within the mild category, and none were very severe or profound. The proportion of patients with PNFA in the severe category was about double in comparison to patients with SemD.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 3 Proportion of patients in each severity category for behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA), and semantic dementia (SemDem), and proportion of patients in each severity category according to Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) ratings

(A) Proportion of patients in each severity category for bvFTD (n = 29), PNFA (n = 20), and SemDem (n = 28). (B) Proportion of patients in each severity category according to CDR ratings, all variants combined (CDR 0, n = 3; CDR 0.5, n = 20; CDR 1, n = 22; CDR 2, n = 7; CDR 3, n = 1).

The FRS and cognitive measures, CDR, and length of symptoms.

There was a correlation between the FRS and MMSE for bvFTD (r = 0.482; p < 0.05) and PNFA (r = 0.675; p < 0.05) groups. The PNFA group also showed a correlation between the FRS and ACE-R (r = 0.695; p < 0.05).

To verify concurrent validity, we compared FRS and CDR scores. There was an overall negative association between the FRS and the CDR (r = −0.713, p < 0.001). Figure 3B compares performance on the FRS and CDR. Interestingly, a proportion of patients with minimal or mild dementia on the CDR (0.5 or 1) had moderate or even severe ratings on the FRS.

In terms of disease progression and length of symptoms, only patients with SemD showed a correlation (r = −0.556; p < 0.03).

Nature of disease staging and progression.

As in AD, overall FTD affects complex ADLs (instrumental ADLs) initially, with changes in basic ADLs later in the course of the disease. Table e-2 outlines the basic and instrumental ADL loss and changes in behavior at the various stages of FTD.

Length of symptoms in each severity category.

To analyze the relationship between length of symptoms and staging, we combined the FRS assessments from the initial cohort (sample 1: n = 77) and the second cohort (sample 2: n = 75), resulting in a total of 152 assessments (sample 4). As shown in figure 4, the SemD group showed the clearest relationship between length of symptoms and severity categories, whereas the bvFTD and PNFA groups showed greater variability.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 4 Box plots of patients according to length of symptoms and Frontotemporal Dementia Rating Scale (FRS) severity category

Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) = 57; progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA) = 41; semantic dementia (SemDem) = 54. Whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals.

Since none of the patients with language variants were beyond severe, we have considered the time between symptom onset and reaching mild, moderate, and severe across the variants. It can be seen from figure 4 that for bvFTD the time to reach mild, moderate, and severe stages was very similar, and that by 5 years the vast majority have severe impairment. By contrast, progression in SemD appears much slower, taking on average 10 years to reach the severe stage. PNFA was somewhat intermediate, with an average around 3 years between mild, moderate, and severe stages.

Rate of decline.

Twelve-month follow-up data were available for 42 patients (sample 3: bvFTD = 17; SemD = 15; PNFA = 10). Mean follow-up time was 13.1 months (6–27 months). All subgroups showed marked decline on the FRS (p < 0.005 for all), which was greater for the bvFTD group (figure 2B).

DISCUSSION

We were able to identify 6 clinical severity stages in FTD, and to characterize the features of each stage based on a novel instrument, the FRS. These behavioral and functional changes were identified using Rasch modeling. The bvFTD group were the most severely impaired and showed the most rapid progression through the stages.

This study confirms the devastating nature of bvFTD, which produces greater functional loss and behavioral change than SemD and PNFA, even after controlling for length of symptoms.7-9 Patients with SemD were the least impaired, with 70% of patients within very mild, mild, and moderate stages, although a recent study using different measures found PNFA to be the least impaired FTD variant.17 Our results showed that the functional level of the PNFA group was intermediate between bvFTD and SemD, perhaps in line with the pathologic heterogeneity5,30; those presenting with lower scores may have underlying AD pathology.31 It is notable that half of the patients with PNFA fell in the severely impaired stage, which strengthens the case to use an ADL and behavioral scale. The reasons for this marked decline are unclear: one plausible explanation is the development of apraxia, which is common in PNFA32 and likely to impact everyday life.33,34 A proportion of patients with PNFA develop full-blown corticobasal syndrome as the disease progresses.5,32 The severity level of the PNFA group highlights the disabling nature of this variant, and that patients with PNFA have more general cognitive impairment than is commonly recognized.

Determining disease severity is controversial. There is currently a lack of consensus in how to define severity in dementia—different studies use cognitive measures, length of disease, or even AD staging tools.9,14,15,17 Our study shows that severity can be measured using a unidimensional tool, which appears to characterize FTD well as a condition that ultimately causes loss of ability and changes in behavior. In addition, the FRS provided further understanding of disease progression in FTD by showing which abilities are lost first and last, without the limitation of cognitive assessments that are language driven.

The FRS also demonstrated statistically significant decline over a 12-month period in all 3 clinical variants. Longitudinal studies are few in FTD, and have reached varied conclusions especially in terms of survival. One study showed that patients with bvFTD declined faster than those with AD, but the SemD group did not differ from AD.35 Another study showed a similar rate of deterioration in both bvFTD and AD.36 The slow progression in SemD is in keeping with the prolonged survival shown in a consecutive series of 100 patients from Cambridge.37

The lack of consistent correlation between the FRS and cognitive measures is of interest. It shows that our staging tool is not biased toward language abilities. For instance, several patients were mute but still high-functioning and independent, and therefore obtained scores within the mild stage. More importantly, it highlights the relevance of a staging tool that focuses on functional decline, which, as shown in AD studies, can be very sensitive to change in drug trials.38,39 In addition, the detailed clinical information provided by the FRS can guide families and clinicians in making important practical decisions in financial, legal, and long-term care issues.

There was, as expected, a negative association between the CDR and FRS in that advanced stages on the FRS correlated with worsening dementia on the CDR. More interestingly, it appears that the CDR underrates disease severity since a proportion of patients rated as having minimal or mild dementia (CDR = 0.5 or 1.0) had moderate or severe levels of disability as rated by the FRS. There was an overall trend for length of symptoms to correlate with severity levels on the FRS: most patients with long disease history fall into the severe categories. Conversely, however, not everyone within these categories had a long disease history. This is especially true for patients with bvFTD, who may be at a moderate stage early in the disease. Moreover, this finding demonstrates that length of symptoms does not necessarily reflect dementia severity in FTD, and should be used with caution when matching different dementia groups.

Our study had certain limitations. We did not have pathologic confirmation of the patients assessed, which would clearly take a number of years, but prior studies have demonstrated that the majority of patients with bvFTD and SemD have pathology within the FTLD spectrum although a proportion of those with PNFA have Alzheimer pathology.31 In addition, a longer follow-up period would provide even more detailed information on disease staging and progression. We have established excellent interrater reliability but retest data should ideally be collected to verify test stability.

This is the first study to describe the specific aspects of disease staging in the variants of FTD. The loss of these abilities can be captured in the FRS, a novel staging tool, which in turn can guide clinicians in determining disease severity and in making prognosis for patients and families.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Statistical analysis was conducted by Dr. E. Mioshi.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors thank Lindy Clemson (Occupational Therapy Faculty of Health Sciences, Sydney University) and Mike Linacre (Winsteps.com) for their advice on Rasch analysis, and Kate Dawson (Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge) and Hilary Green (MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge) for administering cognitive assessments.

DISCLOSURE

Dr. Mioshi serves on the editorial board of Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. Dr. Hsieh, Dr. Savage, and Dr. Hornberger report no disclosures. Dr. Hodges serves on editorial boards of Aphasiology, Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, and Cognitive Neuropsychology; receives royalties from publication of Cognitive Assessment for Clinicians (Oxford University Press, 2007) and Frontotemporal Dementia Syndromes (Cambridge University Press, 2007); and receives fellowship support from the Australian Research Council Federation.

Footnotes

  • Embedded Image

  • Supplemental data at www.neurology.org

    Study funding: Supported by the Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship, FF0776229 (J.R.H.), an MRC Program Grant, and by the Australian Postgraduate Award (S.H.).

    Disclosure: Author disclosures are provided at the end of the article.

    Received September 15, 2009. Accepted in final form February 3, 2010.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Neary D, Snowden JS, Gustafson L, et al. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology 1998;51:1546–1554.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Hodges JR. Frontotemporal dementia (Pick's disease): clinical features and assessment. Neurology 2001;56(11 suppl 4):S6–S10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Knibb JA, Xuereb JH, Patterson K, Hodges JR. Clinical and pathological characterization of progressive aphasia. Ann Neurol 2006;59:156–165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Bozeat S, Gregory CA, Ralph MA, Hodges JR. Which neuropsychiatric and behavioural features distinguish frontal and temporal variants of frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer's disease? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69:178–186.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Kertesz A, McMonagle P, Blair M, Davidson W, Munoz DG. The evolution and pathology of frontotemporal dementia. Brain 2005;128:1996–2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. Nyatsanza S, Shetty T, Gregory C, Lough S, Dawson K, Hodges JR. A study of stereotypic behaviours in Alzheimer's disease and frontal and temporal variant frontotemporal dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:1398–1402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Mioshi E, Kipps CM, Dawson K, Mitchell J, Graham A, Hodges JR. Activities of daily living in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2007;68:2077–2084.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. Wicklund AH, Johnson N, Rademaker A, Weitner BB, Weintraub S. Profiles of decline in activities of daily living in non-Alzheimer dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2007;21:8–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Rosen HJ, Narvaez JM, Hallam B, et al. Neuropsychological and functional measures of severity in Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal dementia, and semantic dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2004;18:202–207.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. Rascovsky K, Salmon DP, Lipton AM, et al. Rate of progression differs in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2005;65:397–403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Mioshi E, Bristow M, Cook R, Hodges JR. Factors underlying caregiver stress in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2009;27:76–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. Riedijk SR, De Vugt ME, Duivenvoorden HJ, et al. Caregiver burden, health-related quality of life and coping in dementia caregivers: a comparison of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:405–412.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. Boutoleau-Bretonniere C, Vercelletto M, Volteau C, Renou P, Lamy E. Zarit burden inventory and activities of daily living in the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2008;25:272–277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. Diehl-Schmid J, Pohl C, Perneczky R, Forstl H, Kurz A. Behavioral disturbances in the course of frontotemporal dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:352–357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. Shinagawa S, Toyota Y, Ishikawa T, et al. Cognitive function and psychiatric symptoms in early- and late-onset frontotemporal dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2008;25:439–444.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Morris JC. Clinical dementia rating: a reliable and valid diagnostic and staging measure for dementia of the Alzheimer type. Int Psychogeriatr 1997;9 suppl 1:173–176; discussion 177–178.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    Knopman DS, Kramer JH, Boeve BF, et al. Development of methodology for conducting clinical trials in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Brain 2008;131:2957–2968.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Mioshi E, Dawson K, Mitchell J, Arnold R, Hodges JR. The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;21:1078–1085.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Davies RR, Kipps CM, Mitchell J, Kril JJ, Halliday GM, Hodges JR. Progression in frontotemporal dementia: identifying a benign behavioral variant by magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Neurol 2006;63:1627–1631.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. Hornberger M, Piguet O, Kipps C, Hodges JR. Executive function in progressive and nonprogressive behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2008;71:1481–1488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. Kipps CM, Nestor PJ, Fryer TD, Hodges JR. Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia: not all it seems? Neurocase 2007;13:237–247.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. Hodges JR, Miller B. The neuropsychology of frontal variant frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia: introduction to the special topic papers: part II. Neurocase 2001;7:113–121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. Hodges JR, Patterson K, Ward R, et al. The differentiation of semantic dementia and frontal lobe dementia (temporal and frontal variants of frontotemporal dementia) from early Alzheimer's disease: a comparative neuropsychological study. Neuropsychology 1999;13:31–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Wedderburn C, Wear H, Brown J, et al. The utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory in neurodegenerative disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:500–503.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Gelinas I, Gauthier L, McIntyre M, Gauthier S. Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer's disease: the disability assessment for dementia. Am J Occup Ther 1999;53:471–481.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.
  27. ↵
    Linacre M. Rasch analysis and Winsteps. Available at: www.winsteps.com/index.htm. Accessed March 2, 2009.
  28. ↵
    Clemson L, Bundy A, Unsworth C, Singh MF. Validation of the modified assessment of living skills and resources, an IADL measure for older people. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:359–369.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ 1997;314:572.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  30. Gorno-Tempini ML, Dronkers NF, Rankin KP, et al. Cognition and anatomy in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Ann Neurol 2004;55:335–346.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Alladi S, Xuereb J, Bak T, et al. Focal cortical presentations of Alzheimer's disease. Brain 2007;130:2636–2645.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Wadia PM, Lang AE. The many faces of corticobasal degeneration. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2007;13 suppl 3:S336–S340.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Hanna-Pladdy B, Heilman KM, Foundas AL. Ecological implications of ideomotor apraxia: evidence from physical activities of daily living. Neurology 2003;60:487–490.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. Sunderland A, Shinner C. Ideomotor apraxia and functional ability. Cortex 2007;43:359–367.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Roberson ED, Hesse JH, Rose KD, et al. Frontotemporal dementia progresses to death faster than Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2005;65:719–725.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Pasquier F, Richard F, Lebert F. Natural history of frontotemporal dementia: comparison with Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2004;17:253–257.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Hodges JR, Mitchell J, Dawson K, et al. Semantic dementia: demography, familial factors and survival in a consecutive series of 100 cases. Brain 2010;133:300–306.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    Feldman H, Sauter A, Donald A, et al. The disability assessment for dementia scale: a 12-month study of functional ability in mild to moderate severity Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001;15:89–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. Behl P, Lanctot KL, Streiner DL, Black SE. The effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on decline in multiple functional domains in Alzheimer's disease: a two-year observational study in the Sunnybrook dementia cohort. Int Psychogeriatr 2008;20:1141–1159.

Letters: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Glossary
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Hemiplegic Migraine Associated With PRRT2 Variations A Clinical and Genetic Study

Dr. Robert Shapiro and Dr. Amynah Pradhan

► Watch

Topics Discussed

  • All Neuropsychology/Behavior
  • Frontotemporal dementia

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published
Neurology: 100 (5)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Education
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2023 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise