¹⁸F-FDG PET Imaging in Neurodegenerative Dementing Disorders: Insights into Subtype Classification, Emerging Disease Categories, and Mixed Dementia with Copathologies

In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.

The Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) Consortium has refined its recommendations about the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB, updating the previous report, which has been in widespread use for the last decade. The revised DLB consensus criteria now distinguish clearly between clinical features and diagnostic biomarkers, and give guidance about optimal methods to establish and interpret these. Substantial new information has been incorporated about previously reported aspects of DLB, with increased diagnostic weighting given to REM sleep behavior disorder and 123iodine-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) myocardial scintigraphy. The diagnostic role of other neuroimaging, electrophysiologic, and laboratory investigations is also described. Minor modifications to pathologic methods and criteria are recommended to take account of Alzheimer disease neuropathologic change, to add previously omitted Lewy-related pathology categories, and to include assessments for substantia nigra neuronal loss. Recommendations about clinical management are largely based upon expert opinion since randomized controlled trials in DLB are few. Substantial progress has been made since the previous report in the detection and recognition of DLB as a common and important clinical disorder. During that period it has been incorporated into DSM-5, as major neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies. There remains a pressing need to understand the underlying neurobiology and pathophysiology of DLB, to develop and deliver clinical trials with both symptomatic and disease-modifying agents, and to help patients and carers worldwide to inform themselves about the disease, its prognosis, best available treatments, ongoing research, and how to get adequate support.

This article provides a classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its 3 main variants to improve the uniformity of case reporting and the reliability of research results. Criteria for the 3 variants of PPA--nonfluent/agrammatic, semantic, and logopenic--were developed by an international group of PPA investigators who convened on 3 occasions to operationalize earlier published clinical descriptions for PPA subtypes. Patients are first diagnosed with PPA and are then divided into clinical variants based on specific speech and language features characteristic of each subtype. Classification can then be further specified as "imaging-supported" if the expected pattern of atrophy is found and "with definite pathology" if pathologic or genetic data are available. The working recommendations are presented in lists of features, and suggested assessment tasks are also provided. These recommendations have been widely agreed upon by a large group of experts and should be used to ensure consistency of PPA classification in future studies. Future collaborations will collect prospective data to identify relationships between each of these syndromes and specific biomarkers for a more detailed understanding of clinicopathologic correlations.