From the Department of Neurology (A.R.S., S.M., A.A.R., R.D.B., D.S.K., R.C.P., J.G.-R.), Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN; Department of Neurology (A.R.S.), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Neurology (A.C.), Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine; and Department of Radiology (P.V., C.R.J.), Department of Pathology (A.T.N., R.R.R.), Department of Quantitative Health Sciences (S.A.P.), and Health Sciences Research (T.G.L.), Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN.
Neurology. 2024 May 28;102(10):e209386. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000209386. Epub 2024 May 6.
Updated criteria for the clinical-MRI diagnosis of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) have recently been proposed. However, their performance in individuals without symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) presentations is less defined. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of the Boston criteria version 2.0 for CAA diagnosis in a cohort of individuals ranging from cognitively normal to dementia in the community and memory clinic settings.
Fifty-four participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging or Alzheimer's Disease Research Center were included if they had an antemortem MRI with gradient-recall echo sequences and a brain autopsy with CAA evaluation. Performance of the Boston criteria v2.0 was compared with v1.5 using histopathologically verified CAA as the reference standard.
The median age at MRI was 75 years (interquartile range 65-80) with 28/54 participants having histopathologically verified CAA (i.e., moderate-to-severe CAA in at least 1 lobar region). The sensitivity and specificity of the Boston criteria v2.0 were 28.6% (95% CI 13.2%-48.7%) and 65.3% (95% CI 44.3%-82.8%) for probable CAA diagnosis (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.47) and 75.0% (55.1-89.3) and 38.5% (20.2-59.4) for any CAA diagnosis (possible + probable; AUC 0.57), respectively. The v2.0 Boston criteria were not superior in performance compared with the prior v1.5 criteria for either CAA diagnostic category.
The Boston criteria v2.0 have low accuracy in patients who are asymptomatic or only have cognitive symptoms. Additional biomarkers need to be explored to optimize CAA diagnosis in this population.
最近提出了更新的脑淀粉样血管病(CAA)临床-MRI 诊断标准。然而,在没有症状性颅内出血(ICH)表现的个体中,其性能定义较少。我们旨在评估波士顿标准 2.0 版本在认知正常至痴呆社区和记忆诊所人群中的 CAA 诊断中的诊断性能。
如果参与者具有梯度回波序列的磁共振成像(MRI)和伴有 CAA 评估的脑尸检,则从 Mayo 诊所衰老研究或阿尔茨海默病研究中心纳入 54 名参与者。使用组织病理学证实的 CAA 作为参考标准,比较波士顿标准 v2.0 与 v1.5 的性能。
MRI 的中位年龄为 75 岁(四分位距 65-80 岁),28/54 名参与者具有组织病理学证实的 CAA(即至少 1 个脑叶区域存在中重度 CAA)。波士顿标准 v2.0 对可能的 CAA 诊断的敏感性和特异性分别为 28.6%(95%CI 13.2%-48.7%)和 65.3%(95%CI 44.3%-82.8%)(接受者操作特征曲线下面积[AUC]0.47),对任何 CAA 诊断(可能+可能;AUC 0.57)的分别为 75.0%(55.1-89.3%)和 38.5%(20.2-59.4%)。与先前的 v1.5 标准相比,v2.0 波士顿标准在任何 CAA 诊断类别中的性能均不占优势。
波士顿标准 v2.0 在无症状或仅具有认知症状的患者中的准确性较低。需要探索其他生物标志物,以优化该人群中的 CAA 诊断。