Abstract
Introduction: The Boston criteria are used worldwide for in vivo diagnosis of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). Given substantial advances in CAA research, we aimed to update the Boston criteria and externally validate their diagnostic accuracy across the spectrum of CAA-related presentations and across international sites. Methods: As part of an International CAA Association multicenter study, we identified patients age 50 or older with potential CAA-related clinical presentations (spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, cognitive impairment, or transient focal neurological episodes), available brain MRI, and histopathologic assessment for the diagnosis of CAA. We derived Boston criteria v2.0 by selecting MRI features to optimize diagnostic specificity and sensitivity in a pre-specified derivation sample (Boston cases 1994 to 2012, n=159), then externally validated in pre-specified temporal (Boston cases 2012-2018, n=59) and geographical (non-Boston cases 2004-2018; n=123) validation samples and compared their diagnostic accuracy to the currently used modified Boston criteria. Results: Based on exploratory analyses in the derivation sample, we derived provisional criteria for probable CAA requiring presence of at least 2 strictly lobar hemorrhagic lesions (intracerebral hemorrhage, cerebral microbleed, or cortical superficial siderosis focus) or at least 1 strictly lobar hemorrhagic lesion and 1 white matter characteristic (severe degree of visible perivascular spaces in centrum semiovale or white matter hyperintensities multispot pattern). Sensitivity/specificity of the criteria were 74.8/84.6% in the derivation sample, 92.5/89.5% in the temporal validation sample, 80.2/81.5% in the geographic validation sample, and 74.5/95.0% in cases across all samples with autopsy as the diagnostic gold standard. The v2.0 criteria for probable CAA had superior accuracy to the currently modified Boston criteria (p<0.005) in the autopsied cases. Conclusion: The Boston criteria v.2.0 incorporate emerging MRI markers of CAA to enhance sensitivity without compromising their high specificity. Validation of the criteria across independent patient settings firmly supports their adoption into clinical practice and research.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.