0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Contribution |

Temporoparietal Hypometabolism in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration and Associated Imaging Diagnostic Errors FREE

Kyle B. Womack, MD; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD; Howard J. Aizenstein, MD, PhD; Steven E. Arnold, MD; Nancy R. Barbas, MD, MSW; Bradley F. Boeve, MD; Christopher M. Clark, MD; Charles S. DeCarli, MD; William J. Jagust, MD; James B. Leverenz, MD; Elaine R. Peskind, MD; R. Scott Turner, MD, PhD; Edward Y. Zamrini, MD; Judith L. Heidebrink, MD; James R. Burke, MD, PhD; Steven T. DeKosky, MD; Martin R. Farlow, MD; Matthew J. Gabel, PhD; Roger Higdon, PhD; Claudia H. Kawas, MD; Robert A. Koeppe, PhD; Anne M. Lipton, MD, PhD; Norman L. Foster, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Neurology (Drs Womack, Diaz-Arrastia, and Lipton) and Psychiatry (Drs Womack and Lipton), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (Drs Aizenstein and DeKosky), and Departments of Psychiatry (Dr Arnold) and Neurology (Drs Arnold and Clark), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Neurology Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Drs Barbas, Turner, and Heidebrink), and Departments of Neurology (Drs Barbas, Turner, and Heidebrink) and Radiology (Dr Koeppe), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Boeve); Department of Neurology, University of California at Davis, Sacramento (Dr DeCarli), Departments of Neuroscience and Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley (Dr Jagust), and Departments of Neurology and Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California at Irvine, Irvine (Dr Kawas); Departments of Neurology (Dr Leverenz) and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (Drs Leverenz and Peskind), University of Washington, and Seattle Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center (Dr Higdon), Seattle; Center for Alzheimer's Care, Imaging, and Research and Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Drs Zamrini and Foster); Department of Neurology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (Dr Burke); Department of Neurology, Indiana University, Indianapolis (Dr Farlow); and Department of Political Science, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri (Dr Gabel). Dr DeKosky is now with the School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Dr Lipton is now with the Department of Neurology, Presbyterian Hospital, Dallas.


Arch Neurol. 2011;68(3):329-337. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2010.295.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the third most common degenerative dementia, behind Alzheimer disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies.1 It is a heterogeneous disorder with at least 3 recognized clinical presentations,2 multiple histopathologic subtypes,3,4 and familial cases associated with mutations in 4 different genes59 with an additional genetic linkage on chromosome 9p.1012

Despite the existence of consensus clinical diagnostic criteria, patients with FTLD are commonly misdiagnosed as having AD or a psychiatric illness.2,1315 These mistakes are understandable given the insidious, progressive nature of both FTLD and AD and their shared symptoms.16 Both illnesses may have prominent behavioral changes, which can overlap symptoms typically seen in psychiatric disorders.1719 While amnesia as the initial symptom of a progressive dementing disease strongly favors a diagnosis of AD, it also occurs in some patients with FTLD.20 Frontotemporal lobar degeneration may present with language deficits, but prominent language deficits also occur in AD.2,2124 The difficulty in obtaining a detailed and reliable clinical history in some situations is a further challenge to accurate diagnosis and highlights the value of validated diagnostic biomarkers.

Despite the difficulties, accurate diagnosis is critical because the clinical management differs for AD and FTLD. The US Food and Drug Administration currently has approved 5 drugs for the treatment of AD: 4 cholinesterase inhibitors and an N-methyl-D-aspartate channel modulator.25 In contrast, no drugs have been shown to be effective in FTLD, although serotonin reuptake inhibitors are often used.26 Cholinesterase inhibitors can worsen behavioral symptoms in patients with FTLD and are generally avoided.2729 The treatment of FTLD with memantine has been the subject of a few small trials, but the open-label design of these trials prevents definitive conclusions from being drawn.3032 The treatment approaches for AD and FTLD will likely diverge even further with the anticipated arrival of specific disease-modifying therapies for AD.26,33

Brain imaging provides an independent, objective, and quantitative measure of disease that complements clinical information and can aid in distinguishing FTLD and AD. Voxel-based morphometric analysis of structural magnetic resonance imaging can detect differences in regional atrophy between groups of patients with FTLD, FTLD subtypes, and AD and controls.34,35 However, visual interpretation of individual magnetic resonance imaging scans, while helpful, can be misleading.36 Positron emission tomography with fludeoxyglucose F 18 (FDG-PET) typically shows sufficient abnormalities that can be used to improve the accuracy of distinguishing AD from FTLD in individual cases.37 Patients with AD characteristically have reduced activity most prominently in the posterior temporoparietal and posterior cingulate cortices.38 By contrast, the FDG-PET scans of patients with FTLD have hypometabolism that is most prominent in the frontal, anterior temporal, and anterior cingulate cortices.39 Metabolic abnormalities are not limited to these regions, however. As the severity of dementia increases, the severity and topographic extent of hypometabolism also increase and begin to involve other regions. Likewise, there is considerable heterogeneity in the individual pattern of hypometabolism that reflects the patient's clinical symptoms. Consequently, considerable judgment is required for visual diagnostic interpretation. Analytic techniques such as stereotactic surface projection maps (SSP) that incorporate both metabolic and statistical information further improve diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET scan interpretation as compared with standard transaxial images.40

In a previous study using the same series of SSP-processed FDG-PET scans that are used in this current analysis, individual raters were able to interpret the scans of patients with autopsy-confirmed AD with a very high degree of sensitivity (97.8%) and confidence. Scans from patients with autopsy-confirmed FTLD, however, had more variability of interpretation, resulting in reduced sensitivity (70.2%) and confidence; however, there remained in patients with FTLD a significant positive effect on diagnostic accuracy as compared with clinical assessment alone (positive likelihood ratio = 36.5).37 We decided to further evaluate the inconsistencies between individual raters for their interpretations of these FTLD FDG-PET scans to see what features were associated with inaccurate scan interpretation and to provide guidance in improving diagnosis. In standard clinical settings, a scan will typically be interpreted by a single individual without the benefit of a diagnostic consensus process often used in research. Identifying and describing features commonly found in the FDG-PET scans of patients with FTLD that are associated with inaccurate interpretations may improve the diagnostic accuracy of these scans in clinical practice.

OVERVIEW

The data for this analysis came from 2 different studies that evaluated the utility of FDG-PET to distinguish AD from FTLD. Each study used a group of 6 raters who reviewed the same series of FDG-PET scans.37 In both studies, the raters individually interpreted each scan as being most consistent with either AD or FTLD before any discussion took place and while blinded to all clinical information. This yielded 12 independent interpretations for each scan, from which we could observe the degree of discrepancy between the raters. The members of 1 group also rated each of 10 regions (5 regions on the right side and 5 regions on the left side) as normal or abnormal.

To simplify the comparisons, we classified a region as abnormal if it was judged to be abnormal on either the left or right side, yielding 5 regions.

SUBJECTS

A previously described group of 45 patients with dementia, FDG-PET scans, and subsequent postmortem histopathological diagnoses of either AD or FTLD was used for this study.37 This group comprised all patients meeting these criteria whose scans were obtained at the University of Michigan between December 1, 1984, and July 31, 1998, and for whom retrievable medical records as well as technically adequate parametric FDG-PET scans were available. A summary of the subjects' characteristics is provided in Table 1. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration is caused by several distinct pathologies. We did not have the information to categorize each of the pathologies but provide the pathologic classification from the autopsy report. We did not attempt to analyze the data by pathologic subtype because our sample size was not large enough to be subdivided and still retain statistical validity. A database of FDG-PET scans from 33 healthy elderly patients of a similar age were used for statistical comparison with patient scans as previously described.37

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Subject Characteristics and Scan Interpretation Data
RATERS

There were 2 different groups of raters used in this study. Each group consisted of 6 members, for a total of 12 raters. Ten of the raters were neurologists and 2 were psychiatrists. All had extensive experience in dementia care at 8 National Institute on Aging–funded Alzheimer's Disease Centers. The raters had variable experience with FDG-PET imaging, ranging from expert to novice. Each rated the scans independently, without knowledge of the opinions of the others and blinded to any clinical data.

IMAGE PROCESSING

The data used in these analyses were from the interpretation of SSP-processed FDG-PET scans. The SSP method is an automated analysis method that warps images into a common stereotactic space and allows for statistical analysis of individual scans as compared with a control group. This results in 6 surface projection maps that are displayed both as a metabolic map and as a statistical map showing surface pixel-by-pixel z scores derived from comparison with a control group. Examples of the maps are shown in Figure 1. (See the article by Foster et al37 for further details.)

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Localization key and stereotactic surface projection map images of 4 example positron emission tomography scans with activity maps on the top row and z maps showing deviation from a normal control cohort on the second row. A, Localization key of brain regions as used by the raters. R indicates right; L, left. B, Scan of a 66-year-old healthy control subject and the color scale used for all positron emission tomographic images in the study. The local cerebral metabolic rate of glucose utilization (ICMRGlc) is indicated by the numbers along the top of the color scale, and the z score values are represented by the numbers across the bottom of the scale. C, Scan of a patient with Alzheimer disease with unanimous interpretations. D, Scan of a patient with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with unanimous interpretations. E, Scan of a patient with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with nonunanimous interpretations (votes: 7 for frontotemporal lobar degeneration, 5 for Alzheimer disease).

Graphic Jump Location
RATER TRAINING

All raters completed a 2-hour training session to establish a uniform approach to scan interpretation and to familiarize the raters with the SSP presentation of FDG-PET data.26 Interpretation was based on the evaluation of 5 regions of the cerebral cortex in each hemisphere and judging the relative degree of abnormality in regions typically affected in AD (temporoparietal and posterior cingulate cortices) and FTLD (anterior temporal, frontal, and anterior cingulate cortices). The raters were not instructed to weigh any particular region more heavily than another but rather to base their final interpretation on whether the preponderance abnormalities were in AD- or FTLD-associated cortical areas. The training used 25 scans from clinically diagnosed patients and healthy elderly controls (10 from patients with AD, 10 from patients with FTLD, and 5 from controls) that were not part of the experimental data set. The 5 regions were reviewed to establish consistent interpretation of the anatomical boundaries of each region (Figure 1).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Interrater reliability for the 6 raters judging regional abnormalities was assessed using κ statistics calculated for all possible rater pairs. The level of agreement based on the κ statistics was classified as fair (κ = 0.20-0.39), moderate (κ = 0.40-0.59), substantial (κ = 0.60-0.79), or almost perfect (κ = 0.80-1.00).41

If 4 or more of the 6 raters who rated regional metabolism thought that a region was hypometabolic, then it was considered abnormal. Associations between regional hypometabolism and a pathologically verified diagnosis of AD or FTLD were evaluated using a χ2 test with Yates correction. Sensitivity, specificity, odds ratios, and positive likelihood ratios were calculated for hypometabolism in the temporoparietal and posterior cingulate cortices for a pathologic diagnosis of AD, while these same measures were calculated for the frontal, anterior cingulate, and anterior temporal cortices for a pathologic diagnosis of FTLD. The positive likelihood ratio incorporates sensitivity and specificity into a single measure: (sensitivity)/(1 − specificity). This represents the probability of a positive test result in an individual with the disorder divided by the probability of a positive test result in an individual without the disorder. A positive likelihood ratio greater than 1 means that a positive test result is more likely to occur in patients with the disease than in those without the disease.

For the pathologically verified FTLD cases, associations between regional hypometabolism and lack of unanimity among the raters for their overall interpretation were evaluated with the Fisher exact test.

Interrater reliability for judging individual regions as normal or abnormal was substantial for the temporoparietal cortex and only slightly less so for the frontal and posterior cingulate cortices (Table 2). However, interrater reliability was only moderate for the anterior cingulate and anterior temporal cortices, which are typically affected in FTLD.41 As expected from previous research,38,42 our raters found hypometabolism in the temporoparietal and posterior cingulate regions much more frequently in AD than in FTLD (odds ratios, 14.5 and 7.2, respectively) (Table 3). Nevertheless, 7 patients with FTLD (50%) had temporoparietal hypometabolism. Temporoparietal hypometabolism was more sensitive, but posterior cingulate hypometabolism was more specific for AD.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Interrater Reliability by Region
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Association of Hypometabolism in Typical Alzheimer Disease–Associated Regions With Pathological Diagnosis

Likewise, our raters found the expected higher frequencies of hypometabolism in the frontal, anterior cingulate, and anterior temporal regions in FTLD as compared with AD (Table 4). Despite what might be expected, the presence of frontal hypometabolism alone did not significantly increase the likelihood of FTLD (odds ratio = 3.3). Patients with AD with or without frontal hypometabolism did not differ significantly with respect to age (mean age, 64.6 vs 66.2 years, respectively; P = .72). On the other hand, anterior cingulate hypometabolism and anterior temporal hypometabolism were much more likely in FTLD cases. All FTLD scans had hypometabolism in at least 1 of the typical FTLD areas, and all but 1 of the FTLD scans had reductions in the anterior cingulate and/or anterior temporal cortices. Hypometabolism in the anterior cingulate and anterior temporal cortices had higher specificities and higher positive likelihood ratios for a diagnosis of FTLD than hypometabolism in the temporoparietal cortex had for AD. Even in the presence of temporoparietal hypometabolism, hypometabolism in the anterior cingulate cortex and hypometabolism in the anterior temporal cortex were each strongly associated with a diagnosis of FTLD rather than AD (Table 5).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Association of Hypometabolism in Typical Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration–Associated Regions With Pathological Diagnosis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Association of Anterior Cingulate and Temporoparietal Hypometabolism With Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration in the Subset of Scans With Temporoparietal Hypometabolism

The 12 raters who provided an overall interpretation of the scans were unanimous in their decisions 76% of the time (34 of 45 interpretations), and all unanimous decisions were also correct. Because nonunanimity would correspond to interpretation errors on the part of some raters, we looked to see what factors, if any, were associated with this subset of misdiagnosed scans (Table 6). Of the FTLD scans, 7 (50%) had nonunanimous interpretations with a range of 1 to 11 incorrect among a total of 12 raters (Figure 2). In contrast, only 4 AD scans (13%) lacked unanimity, demonstrating a strong association of nonunanimous FDG-PET interpretation with a diagnosis of FTLD (P = .02 by Fisher exact test; Pearson ϕ = 0.79). Clearly, raters had more difficulty with FTLD scans. Among the 4 AD scans with nonunanimous decisions, 2 had only 1 discrepant interpretation. In both of the AD cases that had more than 1 discordant interpretation, the posterior cingulate cortex was judged to be normal and at least 1 FTLD-associated area was judged to be abnormal. Because of the small number of these cases, we did not analyze them further. In the FTLD cases, hypometabolism in the temporoparietal cortex was significantly associated with nonunanimous interpretations, occurring in 6 of 7 nonunanimous scans and in only 1 of 7 unanimously decided scans (Table 6). Posterior cingulate abnormalities were not independently associated with nonunanimity beyond the trend level, and all FTLD scans that had posterior cingulate hypometabolism also had temporoparietal abnormalities. No individual FTLD areas were independently associated with unanimity. Five of the FTLD scans had hypometabolism in all 3 FTLD-associated areas, and all of these scans had unanimous interpretations.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

The number of scans and the degree of unanimity in the interpretation among 12 interpreters. Zero raters with incorrect interpretations indicates unanimous interpretations. Only 7 frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) scans (50%) had unanimous, correct interpretations; 27 Alzheimer disease (AD) scans (87%) had unanimous, correct interpretations. Of note, 2 of 4 AD scans with nonunanimous interpretations had only 1 of 12 raters in error.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Association of Regional Hypometabolism With Nonunanimous Interpretation of Positron Emission Tomographic Scans With Fludeoxyglucose F 18 in Subjects With Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

Temporoparietal involvement in FTLD that is detectable by both magnetic resonance imaging and single-photon emission computed tomography has been noted previously, particularly with respect to its association with progranulin mutations.4345 Corticobasal degeneration, which is part of the FTLD spectrum of disorders, frequently involves the parietal cortex as well.46,47 Parietal atrophy has also been demonstrated in patients with microtubule-associated tau protein mutations, although it is less than what is seen with progranulin mutations.48

In our sample, the presence of temporoparietal hypometabolism on FDG-PET imaging was a common finding in the FTLD cases. This raises concern from a diagnostic standpoint because many use hypometabolism in the temporoparietal region as a reliable sign of AD. While we found the sensitivity of temporoparietal abnormalities to be quite good for AD (93.6%), the specificity was only 50%. This reduced specificity had consequences because temporoparietal hypometabolism had a disproportionate effect on interpretation errors for patients with FTLD. All of the FTLD scans with temporoparietal abnormalities also had hypometabolism in at least 1 or more areas associated with FTLD, and most had abnormalities in at least 2 FTLD regions. This suggests that evidence for AD may have a tendency to trump evidence for FTLD in FDG-PET interpretation. Our findings demonstrate, however, that hypometabolism in the anterior cingulate and anterior temporal regions should carry at least as much weight for a diagnosis of FTLD as temporoparietal hypometabolism carries for a diagnosis of AD, even when this is seen in the presence of temporoparietal hypometabolism. While we found associations of anterior cingulate and anterior temporal hypometabolism with FTLD, we did not find an association with hypometabolism of the frontal cortex (lateral and dorsolateral) with FTLD. These findings are consonant with other work, which has carefully looked at patterns of atrophy that distinguish FTLD from AD. Atrophy of the paralimbic fronto-insular-striatal network, of which the anterior cingulate cortex is a part, distinguishes FTLD from AD, while atrophy of the dorsolateral frontal cortex does not.49 These findings in turn mirror the distribution of the von Economo neurons. These neurons are found in the anterior cingulate and anterior insular cortices and are absent from the dorsolateral frontal lobes. They are preferentially and severely affected early in the course of FTLD and may underlie this specific distribution of atrophy50,51 or, in the case of our data, hypometabolism. Our data show that relying more on anterior temporal and especially anterior cingulate hypometabolism for a diagnosis of FTLD would improve the accuracy of scan interpretation.

Ultimately, interpretation of an FDG-PET scan to distinguish between AD and FTLD cannot be based on the presence or absence of hypometabolism in a single region. Instead, overreliance on findings in a single region of the cortex should be avoided by considering all likely affected regions and determining the relative degree of hypometabolism in each, in terms of both intensity and topographic extent.

There are several limitations to our study. Our sample size was relatively small, particularly with respect to the number of patients with FTLD. Optimally there would be similar numbers of patients with FTLD and patients with AD; however, obtaining such a group of patients with FTLD with both technically adequate FDG-PET scans and pathologic confirmation of their diagnosis would be difficult. We used the majority opinion of raters to define the presence or absence of regional hypometabolism. More objective measures of hypometabolism could give different results, but to be clinically meaningful, a finding must be perceptible to an interpreter. We thus believe that our approach provides more practical value for clinical applications. This is a convenience sample, with patients scanned at various points during the course of their illness. While this study provides some general guidelines for image interpretation, it is possible that different algorithms would be ideal for early diagnosis and when there already are severe deficits. Nevertheless, in current practice, determining the cause of dementia is often delayed and patients can be first scanned at any point in their illness.

The findings of this study are particularly relevant given the somewhat recent and growing use of FDG-PET in dementia evaluations. Although recently approved for this use by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the United States, relatively few physicians have been trained to appreciate the complexity of FDG-PET patterns of hypometabolism seen in dementia. This may lead to reliance on an overly simplified interpretation scheme, such as the presence or absence of temporoparietal hypometabolism as the primary deciding factor between AD and FTLD. The results of this study indicate that such an AD-centric approach to FDG-PET interpretation may produce interpretation errors in a substantial proportion of patients with FTLD. The current Medicare guidelines for the use of FDG-PET in dementia recognize it as an appropriate study to distinguish between AD and FTLD when the clinical evaluation cannot. If this criterion is applied correctly by ordering physicians, then the proportion of patients with FTLD relative to patients with AD will be much larger in the subset of patients with dementia receiving FDG-PET scans than in the clinical dementia population.

The clinician will ultimately have to reconcile clinical, laboratory, and imaging data to make a final, accurate diagnosis. Imaging with FDG-PET improves diagnostic accuracy in dementia, but this effect is in turn dependent on accurate scan interpretation. Understanding the moderate specificity of temporoparietal hypometabolism for AD and the relatively high specificity and positive likelihood ratio of anterior cingulate and anterior temporal hypometabolism for FTLD may improve FDG-PET scan interpretation and therefore maximize the positive effect of these studies on diagnostic accuracy.

Correspondence: Kyle B. Womack, MD, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-9129 (kyle.womack@utsouthwestern.edu).

Accepted for Publication: September 16, 2010.

Published Online: November 8, 2010. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2010.295 This article was corrected for errors on November 12, 2010.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Womack, Diaz-Arrastia, Gabel, and Foster. Acquisition of data: Aizenstein, Arnold, Barbas, Clark, DeCarli, Jagust, Leverenz, Peskind, Turner, Zamrini, Heidebrink, Burke, DeKosky, Farlow, Gabel, Kawas, and Foster. Analysis and interpretation of data: Womack, Diaz-Arrastia, Boeve, DeKosky, Higdon, Koeppe, Lipton, and Foster. Drafting of the manuscript: Womack, Aizenstein, and Foster. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Womack, Diaz-Arrastia, Arnold, Barbas, Boeve, Clark, DeCarli, Jagust, Leverenz, Peskind, Turner, Zamrini, Heidebrink, Burke, DeKosky, Farlow, Gabel, Higdon, Kawas, Koeppe, Lipton, and Foster. Statistical analysis: Womack, Higdon, and Koeppe. Obtained funding: Womack, Turner, DeKosky, and Foster. Administrative, technical, and material support: Arnold, DeCarli, Heidebrink, DeKosky, Farlow, Gabel, and Foster. Study supervision: Diaz-Arrastia and Foster.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants AG22394 and AG30006 from the National Institutes of Health; an anonymous private donation to the Center for Alzheimer's Care, Imaging, and Research; the pilot cooperative project grant AG16976 from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center; and grants from the following National Institutes of Health Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers: Michigan (grant AG08671), University of California at Davis (grant AG10129), University of Pennsylvania (grant AG10124), University of California at Irvine (grant AG16573), Duke University (grant AG028377), Indiana University (grant AG10133), University of Pittsburgh (grant AG05133), and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas (grant AG12300).

Additional Contributions: Sid Gilman, MD, FRCP, Henry Buchtel, PhD, and R. Scott Turner, MD, PhD, made images from their research available for this study, and Angela Y. Wang, PhD, provided valuable assistance with Figure 1.

Financial Disclosure: Dr Farlow receives research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Danone, Elan, Eli Lilly, Forest, Janssen, Medivation, Pfizer, Novartis, OctaPharma, and Sonexa; is a scientific consultant for Adamas, Accera, AstraZeneca, Astellas, BioRx, CoMentis, Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Medivation, Merck, Novartis, Noven, OctaPharma, QR Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Suven Life Sciences Ltd, and Toyama Chemical Co; is a speaker for Eisai, Forest, Janssen, Pfizer, and Novartis; receives royalties for intellectual property from Elan; and has a spouse who is employed by and receives a salary from Eli Lilly.

Barker  WWLuis  CAKashuba  A  et al.  Relative frequencies of Alzheimer disease, Lewy body, vascular and frontotemporal dementia, and hippocampal sclerosis in the State of Florida Brain Bank. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2002;16 (4) 203- 212
PubMed
Neary  DSnowden  JSGustafson  L  et al.  Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology 1998;51 (6) 1546- 1554
PubMed
Cairns  NJBigio  EHMackenzie  IR  et al. Consortium for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration, Neuropathologic diagnostic and nosologic criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration: consensus of the Consortium for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration. Acta Neuropathol 2007;114 (1) 5- 22
PubMed
Cairns  NJNeumann  MBigio  EH  et al.  TDP-43 in familial and sporadic frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin inclusions. Am J Pathol 2007;171 (1) 227- 240
PubMed
Baker  MMackenzie  IRPickering-Brown  SM  et al.  Mutations in progranulin cause tau-negative frontotemporal dementia linked to chromosome 17. Nature 2006;442 (7105) 916- 919
PubMed
Wilhelmsen  KC Frontotemporal dementia is on the MAPtau. Ann Neurol 1997;41 (2) 139- 140
PubMed
Skibinski  GParkinson  NJBrown  JM  et al.  Mutations in the endosomal ESCRTIII-complex subunit CHMP2B in frontotemporal dementia. Nat Genet 2005;37 (8) 806- 808
PubMed
Watts  GDWymer  JKovach  MJ  et al.  Inclusion body myopathy associated with Paget disease of bone and frontotemporal dementia is caused by mutant valosin-containing protein. Nat Genet 2004;36 (4) 377- 381
PubMed
Cruts  MGijselinck  Ivan der Zee  J  et al.  Null mutations in progranulin cause ubiquitin-positive frontotemporal dementia linked to chromosome 17q21. Nature 2006;442 (7105) 920- 924
PubMed
Morita  MAl-Chalabi  AAndersen  PM  et al.  A locus on chromosome 9p confers susceptibility to ALS and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2006;66 (6) 839- 844
PubMed
Vance  CAl-Chalabi  ARuddy  D  et al.  Familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with frontotemporal dementia is linked to a locus on chromosome 9p13.2-21.3. Brain 2006;129 (pt 4) 868- 876
PubMed
Valdmanis  PNDupre  NBouchard  JP  et al.  Three families with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia with evidence of linkage to chromosome 9p [published correction appears in Arch Neurol. 2007;64(6):909]. Arch Neurol 2007;64 (2) 240- 245
PubMed
Hou  CECarlin  DMiller  BL Non-Alzheimer's disease dementias: anatomic, clinical, and molecular correlates. Can J Psychiatry 2004;49 (3) 164- 171
PubMed
Pasquier  F Telling the difference between frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2005;18 (6) 628- 632
PubMed
Pijnenburg  YAGillissen  FJonker  CScheltens  P Initial complaints in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2004;17 (4) 302- 306
PubMed
Varma  ARSnowden  JSLloyd  JJTalbot  PRMann  DMNeary  D Evaluation of the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria in the differentiation of Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66 (2) 184- 188
PubMed
Fernández Martínez  MCastro Flores  JPérez de las Heras  SMandaluniz Lekumberri  AGordejuela Menocal  MZarranz Imirizaldu  JJ Prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in elderly patients with dementia in Mungialde County (Basque Country, Spain). Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2008;25 (2) 103- 108
PubMed
Velakoulis  DWalterfang  MMocellin  RPantelis  CMcLean  C Frontotemporal dementia presenting as schizophrenia-like psychosis in young people: clinicopathological series and review of cases. Br J Psychiatry 2009;194 (4) 298- 305
PubMed
Woolley  JDWilson  MRHung  EGorno-Tempini  MLMiller  BLShim  J Frontotemporal dementia and mania. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164 (12) 1811- 1816
PubMed
Graham  ADavies  RXuereb  J  et al.  Pathologically proven frontotemporal dementia presenting with severe amnesia. Brain 2005;128 (pt 3) 597- 605
PubMed
Gorno-Tempini  MLBrambati  SMGinex  V  et al.  The logopenic/phonological variant of primary progressive aphasia. Neurology 2008;71 (16) 1227- 1234
PubMed
Kertesz  AMunoz  DG Primary progressive aphasia: a review of the neurobiology of a common presentation of Pick complex. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2002;17 (1) 30- 36
PubMed
Alladi  SXuereb  JBak  T  et al.  Focal cortical presentations of Alzheimer's disease. Brain 2007;130 (pt 10) 2636- 2645
PubMed
Knibb  JAXuereb  JHPatterson  KHodges  JR Clinical and pathological characterization of progressive aphasia. Ann Neurol 2006;59 (1) 156- 165
PubMed
Farlow  MRCummings  JL Effective pharmacologic management of Alzheimer's disease. Am J Med 2007;120 (5) 388- 397
PubMed
Vossel  KAMiller  BL New approaches to the treatment of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Curr Opin Neurol 2008;21 (6) 708- 716
PubMed
Di Lazzaro  VPilato  FDileone  M  et al.  In vivo cholinergic circuit evaluation in frontotemporal and Alzheimer dementias. Neurology 2006;66 (7) 1111- 1113
PubMed
Procter  AWQurne  MFrancis  PT Neurochemical features of frontotemporal dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999;10 ((suppl 1)) 80- 84
PubMed
Mendez  MFShapira  JSMcMurtray  ALicht  E Preliminary findings: behavioral worsening on donepezil in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007;15 (1) 84- 87
Swanberg  MM Memantine for behavioral disturbances in frontotemporal dementia: a case series. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2007;21 (2) 164- 166
PubMed
Diehl-Schmid  JFörstl  HPerneczky  RPohl  CKurz  A A 6-month, open-label study of memantine in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008;23 (7) 754- 759
PubMed
Boxer  ALLipton  AMWomack  KB  et al.  An open-label study of memantine treatment in 3 subtypes of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009;23 (3) 211- 217
PubMed
Salloway  SMintzer  JWeiner  MFCummings  JL Disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2008;4 (2) 65- 79
PubMed
Seshadri  SBeiser  ASelhub  J  et al.  Plasma homocysteine as a risk factor for dementia and Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 2002;346 (7) 476- 483
PubMed
Short  RABroderick  DFPatton  AArvanitakis  ZGraff-Radford  NR Different patterns of magnetic resonance imaging atrophy for frontotemporal lobar degeneration syndromes. Arch Neurol 2005;62 (7) 1106- 1110
PubMed
Likeman  MAnderson  VMStevens  JM  et al.  Visual assessment of atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pathologically confirmed young-onset dementias. Arch Neurol 2005;62 (9) 1410- 1415
PubMed
Foster  NLHeidebrink  JLClark  CM  et al.  FDG-PET improves accuracy in distinguishing frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Brain 2007;130 (pt 10) 2616- 2635
PubMed
Minoshima  SGiordani  BBerent  SFrey  KAFoster  NLKuhl  DE Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol 1997;42 (1) 85- 94
PubMed
Ishii  KSakamoto  SSasaki  M  et al.  Cerebral glucose metabolism in patients with frontotemporal dementia. J Nucl Med 1998;39 (11) 1875- 1878
PubMed
Burdette  JHMinoshima  SVander Borght  TTran  DDKuhl  DE Alzheimer disease: improved visual interpretation of PET images by using three-dimensional stereotaxic surface projections. Radiology 1996;198 (3) 837- 843
PubMed
Landis  JRKoch  GG The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33 (1) 159- 174
PubMed
Friedland  RPJagust  WJHuesman  RH  et al.  Regional cerebral glucose transport and utilization in Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1989;39 (11) 1427- 1434
PubMed
Beck  JRohrer  JDCampbell  T  et al.  A distinct clinical, neuropsychological and radiological phenotype is associated with progranulin gene mutations in a large UK series. Brain 2008;131 (pt 3) 706- 720
PubMed
Le Ber  ICamuzat  AHannequin  D  et al. French Research Network on FTD/FTD-MND, Phenotype variability in progranulin mutation carriers: a clinical, neuropsychological, imaging and genetic study. Brain 2008;131 (pt 3) 732- 746
PubMed
Whitwell  JLJack  CR  JrBaker  M  et al.  Voxel-based morphometry in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions with and without progranulin mutations. Arch Neurol 2007;64 (3) 371- 376
PubMed
Boxer  ALGeschwind  MDBelfor  N  et al.  Patterns of brain atrophy that differentiate corticobasal degeneration syndrome from progressive supranuclear palsy. Arch Neurol 2006;63 (1) 81- 86
PubMed
Juh  RPae  CUKim  TSLee  CUChoe  BSuh  T Cerebral glucose metabolism in corticobasal degeneration comparison with progressive supranuclear palsy using statistical mapping analysis. Neurosci Lett 2005;383 (1-2) 22- 27
PubMed
Whitwell  JLJack  CR  JrBoeve  BF  et al.  Voxel-based morphometry patterns of atrophy in FTLD with mutations in MAPT or PGRNNeurology 2009;72 (9) 813- 820
PubMed
Rabinovici  GDSeeley  WWKim  EJ  et al.  Distinct MRI atrophy patterns in autopsy-proven Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2007;22 (6) 474- 488
PubMed
Seeley  WWCarlin  DAAllman  JM  et al.  Early frontotemporal dementia targets neurons unique to apes and humans. Ann Neurol 2006;60 (6) 660- 667
PubMed
Seeley  WWCrawford  RRascovsky  K  et al.  Frontal paralimbic network atrophy in very mild behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Arch Neurol 2008;65 (2) 249- 255
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Localization key and stereotactic surface projection map images of 4 example positron emission tomography scans with activity maps on the top row and z maps showing deviation from a normal control cohort on the second row. A, Localization key of brain regions as used by the raters. R indicates right; L, left. B, Scan of a 66-year-old healthy control subject and the color scale used for all positron emission tomographic images in the study. The local cerebral metabolic rate of glucose utilization (ICMRGlc) is indicated by the numbers along the top of the color scale, and the z score values are represented by the numbers across the bottom of the scale. C, Scan of a patient with Alzheimer disease with unanimous interpretations. D, Scan of a patient with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with unanimous interpretations. E, Scan of a patient with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with nonunanimous interpretations (votes: 7 for frontotemporal lobar degeneration, 5 for Alzheimer disease).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

The number of scans and the degree of unanimity in the interpretation among 12 interpreters. Zero raters with incorrect interpretations indicates unanimous interpretations. Only 7 frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) scans (50%) had unanimous, correct interpretations; 27 Alzheimer disease (AD) scans (87%) had unanimous, correct interpretations. Of note, 2 of 4 AD scans with nonunanimous interpretations had only 1 of 12 raters in error.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Subject Characteristics and Scan Interpretation Data
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Interrater Reliability by Region
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Association of Hypometabolism in Typical Alzheimer Disease–Associated Regions With Pathological Diagnosis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Association of Hypometabolism in Typical Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration–Associated Regions With Pathological Diagnosis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Association of Anterior Cingulate and Temporoparietal Hypometabolism With Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration in the Subset of Scans With Temporoparietal Hypometabolism
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Association of Regional Hypometabolism With Nonunanimous Interpretation of Positron Emission Tomographic Scans With Fludeoxyglucose F 18 in Subjects With Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

References

Barker  WWLuis  CAKashuba  A  et al.  Relative frequencies of Alzheimer disease, Lewy body, vascular and frontotemporal dementia, and hippocampal sclerosis in the State of Florida Brain Bank. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2002;16 (4) 203- 212
PubMed
Neary  DSnowden  JSGustafson  L  et al.  Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology 1998;51 (6) 1546- 1554
PubMed
Cairns  NJBigio  EHMackenzie  IR  et al. Consortium for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration, Neuropathologic diagnostic and nosologic criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration: consensus of the Consortium for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration. Acta Neuropathol 2007;114 (1) 5- 22
PubMed
Cairns  NJNeumann  MBigio  EH  et al.  TDP-43 in familial and sporadic frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin inclusions. Am J Pathol 2007;171 (1) 227- 240
PubMed
Baker  MMackenzie  IRPickering-Brown  SM  et al.  Mutations in progranulin cause tau-negative frontotemporal dementia linked to chromosome 17. Nature 2006;442 (7105) 916- 919
PubMed
Wilhelmsen  KC Frontotemporal dementia is on the MAPtau. Ann Neurol 1997;41 (2) 139- 140
PubMed
Skibinski  GParkinson  NJBrown  JM  et al.  Mutations in the endosomal ESCRTIII-complex subunit CHMP2B in frontotemporal dementia. Nat Genet 2005;37 (8) 806- 808
PubMed
Watts  GDWymer  JKovach  MJ  et al.  Inclusion body myopathy associated with Paget disease of bone and frontotemporal dementia is caused by mutant valosin-containing protein. Nat Genet 2004;36 (4) 377- 381
PubMed
Cruts  MGijselinck  Ivan der Zee  J  et al.  Null mutations in progranulin cause ubiquitin-positive frontotemporal dementia linked to chromosome 17q21. Nature 2006;442 (7105) 920- 924
PubMed
Morita  MAl-Chalabi  AAndersen  PM  et al.  A locus on chromosome 9p confers susceptibility to ALS and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2006;66 (6) 839- 844
PubMed
Vance  CAl-Chalabi  ARuddy  D  et al.  Familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with frontotemporal dementia is linked to a locus on chromosome 9p13.2-21.3. Brain 2006;129 (pt 4) 868- 876
PubMed
Valdmanis  PNDupre  NBouchard  JP  et al.  Three families with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia with evidence of linkage to chromosome 9p [published correction appears in Arch Neurol. 2007;64(6):909]. Arch Neurol 2007;64 (2) 240- 245
PubMed
Hou  CECarlin  DMiller  BL Non-Alzheimer's disease dementias: anatomic, clinical, and molecular correlates. Can J Psychiatry 2004;49 (3) 164- 171
PubMed
Pasquier  F Telling the difference between frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2005;18 (6) 628- 632
PubMed
Pijnenburg  YAGillissen  FJonker  CScheltens  P Initial complaints in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2004;17 (4) 302- 306
PubMed
Varma  ARSnowden  JSLloyd  JJTalbot  PRMann  DMNeary  D Evaluation of the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria in the differentiation of Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66 (2) 184- 188
PubMed
Fernández Martínez  MCastro Flores  JPérez de las Heras  SMandaluniz Lekumberri  AGordejuela Menocal  MZarranz Imirizaldu  JJ Prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in elderly patients with dementia in Mungialde County (Basque Country, Spain). Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2008;25 (2) 103- 108
PubMed
Velakoulis  DWalterfang  MMocellin  RPantelis  CMcLean  C Frontotemporal dementia presenting as schizophrenia-like psychosis in young people: clinicopathological series and review of cases. Br J Psychiatry 2009;194 (4) 298- 305
PubMed
Woolley  JDWilson  MRHung  EGorno-Tempini  MLMiller  BLShim  J Frontotemporal dementia and mania. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164 (12) 1811- 1816
PubMed
Graham  ADavies  RXuereb  J  et al.  Pathologically proven frontotemporal dementia presenting with severe amnesia. Brain 2005;128 (pt 3) 597- 605
PubMed
Gorno-Tempini  MLBrambati  SMGinex  V  et al.  The logopenic/phonological variant of primary progressive aphasia. Neurology 2008;71 (16) 1227- 1234
PubMed
Kertesz  AMunoz  DG Primary progressive aphasia: a review of the neurobiology of a common presentation of Pick complex. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2002;17 (1) 30- 36
PubMed
Alladi  SXuereb  JBak  T  et al.  Focal cortical presentations of Alzheimer's disease. Brain 2007;130 (pt 10) 2636- 2645
PubMed
Knibb  JAXuereb  JHPatterson  KHodges  JR Clinical and pathological characterization of progressive aphasia. Ann Neurol 2006;59 (1) 156- 165
PubMed
Farlow  MRCummings  JL Effective pharmacologic management of Alzheimer's disease. Am J Med 2007;120 (5) 388- 397
PubMed
Vossel  KAMiller  BL New approaches to the treatment of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Curr Opin Neurol 2008;21 (6) 708- 716
PubMed
Di Lazzaro  VPilato  FDileone  M  et al.  In vivo cholinergic circuit evaluation in frontotemporal and Alzheimer dementias. Neurology 2006;66 (7) 1111- 1113
PubMed
Procter  AWQurne  MFrancis  PT Neurochemical features of frontotemporal dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999;10 ((suppl 1)) 80- 84
PubMed
Mendez  MFShapira  JSMcMurtray  ALicht  E Preliminary findings: behavioral worsening on donepezil in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007;15 (1) 84- 87
Swanberg  MM Memantine for behavioral disturbances in frontotemporal dementia: a case series. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2007;21 (2) 164- 166
PubMed
Diehl-Schmid  JFörstl  HPerneczky  RPohl  CKurz  A A 6-month, open-label study of memantine in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008;23 (7) 754- 759
PubMed
Boxer  ALLipton  AMWomack  KB  et al.  An open-label study of memantine treatment in 3 subtypes of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009;23 (3) 211- 217
PubMed
Salloway  SMintzer  JWeiner  MFCummings  JL Disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2008;4 (2) 65- 79
PubMed
Seshadri  SBeiser  ASelhub  J  et al.  Plasma homocysteine as a risk factor for dementia and Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 2002;346 (7) 476- 483
PubMed
Short  RABroderick  DFPatton  AArvanitakis  ZGraff-Radford  NR Different patterns of magnetic resonance imaging atrophy for frontotemporal lobar degeneration syndromes. Arch Neurol 2005;62 (7) 1106- 1110
PubMed
Likeman  MAnderson  VMStevens  JM  et al.  Visual assessment of atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pathologically confirmed young-onset dementias. Arch Neurol 2005;62 (9) 1410- 1415
PubMed
Foster  NLHeidebrink  JLClark  CM  et al.  FDG-PET improves accuracy in distinguishing frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Brain 2007;130 (pt 10) 2616- 2635
PubMed
Minoshima  SGiordani  BBerent  SFrey  KAFoster  NLKuhl  DE Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol 1997;42 (1) 85- 94
PubMed
Ishii  KSakamoto  SSasaki  M  et al.  Cerebral glucose metabolism in patients with frontotemporal dementia. J Nucl Med 1998;39 (11) 1875- 1878
PubMed
Burdette  JHMinoshima  SVander Borght  TTran  DDKuhl  DE Alzheimer disease: improved visual interpretation of PET images by using three-dimensional stereotaxic surface projections. Radiology 1996;198 (3) 837- 843
PubMed
Landis  JRKoch  GG The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33 (1) 159- 174
PubMed
Friedland  RPJagust  WJHuesman  RH  et al.  Regional cerebral glucose transport and utilization in Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1989;39 (11) 1427- 1434
PubMed
Beck  JRohrer  JDCampbell  T  et al.  A distinct clinical, neuropsychological and radiological phenotype is associated with progranulin gene mutations in a large UK series. Brain 2008;131 (pt 3) 706- 720
PubMed
Le Ber  ICamuzat  AHannequin  D  et al. French Research Network on FTD/FTD-MND, Phenotype variability in progranulin mutation carriers: a clinical, neuropsychological, imaging and genetic study. Brain 2008;131 (pt 3) 732- 746
PubMed
Whitwell  JLJack  CR  JrBaker  M  et al.  Voxel-based morphometry in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions with and without progranulin mutations. Arch Neurol 2007;64 (3) 371- 376
PubMed
Boxer  ALGeschwind  MDBelfor  N  et al.  Patterns of brain atrophy that differentiate corticobasal degeneration syndrome from progressive supranuclear palsy. Arch Neurol 2006;63 (1) 81- 86
PubMed
Juh  RPae  CUKim  TSLee  CUChoe  BSuh  T Cerebral glucose metabolism in corticobasal degeneration comparison with progressive supranuclear palsy using statistical mapping analysis. Neurosci Lett 2005;383 (1-2) 22- 27
PubMed
Whitwell  JLJack  CR  JrBoeve  BF  et al.  Voxel-based morphometry patterns of atrophy in FTLD with mutations in MAPT or PGRNNeurology 2009;72 (9) 813- 820
PubMed
Rabinovici  GDSeeley  WWKim  EJ  et al.  Distinct MRI atrophy patterns in autopsy-proven Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2007;22 (6) 474- 488
PubMed
Seeley  WWCarlin  DAAllman  JM  et al.  Early frontotemporal dementia targets neurons unique to apes and humans. Ann Neurol 2006;60 (6) 660- 667
PubMed
Seeley  WWCrawford  RRascovsky  K  et al.  Frontal paralimbic network atrophy in very mild behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Arch Neurol 2008;65 (2) 249- 255
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles