From the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (J.M.H., C.G., J.C.T., A.M.T.R., D.N., D.d.P., P.P., D.M.A.M., J.S.S., M.J.), Cerebral Function Unit, Greater Manchester Neuroscience Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford; and Institute of Brain, Behaviour and Mental Health (J.M.H., D.N., D.M.A.M., J.S.S., M.J.), University of Manchester, UK.
Neurology. 2013 Nov 19;81(21):1832-9. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000436070.28137.7b. Epub 2013 Oct 18.
We aimed to determine the extent to which patients with progressive language impairment conform to 2011 primary progressive aphasia (PPA) classification and to examine clinicopathologic correlations within PPA variants.
Sixty-two consecutive patients with pathologically confirmed dementia who presented clinically with aphasia were identified. Patients with insufficient clinical information were excluded. PPA classifications were applied to anonymized clinical data taken from patients' initial assessment by raters who were blinded to clinical and pathologic diagnosis.
The final cohort comprised 52 patients, 30 of whom met basic PPA criteria. Twenty-five patients met one of the 3 PPA classifications (13 logopenic, 8 nonfluent/agrammatic, and 4 semantic). Five patients did not meet the criteria for any of the PPA variants. All patients who met semantic variant PPA and 75% of patients who met nonfluent/agrammatic variant PPA classifications had frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum pathology. Pathologies were heterogeneous in patients who met logopenic variant PPA criteria (46% Alzheimer disease [AD], 8% AD mixed with dementia with Lewy bodies, 23% frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and 23% other).
The 2011 PPA recommendations classify a large proportion of patients who meet basic PPA criteria. However, some patients had aphasic syndromes that could not be classified, suggesting that the 2011 recommendations do not cover the full range of PPA variants. Classification of semantic variant PPA provides a good prediction of underlying pathology. Classification of logopenic variant does not successfully differentiate PPA due to AD from PPA due to other pathologies.
我们旨在确定进行性语言障碍患者与 2011 年原发性进行性失语症(PPA)分类的符合程度,并检查 PPA 变异型内的临床病理相关性。
确定了 62 例经病理证实的痴呆患者,这些患者在临床上表现为语言障碍,并具有临床语言障碍且有足够的临床资料。将 PPA 分类应用于匿名的临床数据,这些数据是从患者的初始评估中获取的,评分者对临床和病理诊断是盲的。
最终的队列包括 52 例患者,其中 30 例符合基本 PPA 标准。有 25 例患者符合 3 种 PPA 分类之一(13 例为失读症,8 例为非流利/语法障碍,4 例为语义性)。有 5 例患者不符合任何 PPA 变体的标准。符合语义变体 PPA 的所有患者和符合非流利/语法障碍变体 PPA 分类的 75%的患者均具有额颞叶变性谱病理学。符合失读症变体 PPA 标准的患者的病理学表现具有异质性(46%阿尔茨海默病[AD],8%AD 混合路易体痴呆,23%额颞叶变性和 23%其他)。
2011 年 PPA 建议将很大一部分符合基本 PPA 标准的患者进行分类。但是,有些患者的失语症综合征无法分类,这表明 2011 年的建议并未涵盖 PPA 变体的全部范围。语义变体 PPA 的分类可很好地预测潜在的病理。失读症变体的分类不能成功地区分由于 AD 引起的 PPA 与由于其他病理学引起的 PPA。