Memory Performance in Mild Sporadic and Familial Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia: Findings from the ALLFTD Consortium

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMemory impairment is generally considered minimal to absent in those with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). We sought to assess the frequencies of subjective and objective memory impairment in individuals with mild bvFTD according to consensus criteria.MethodAssessments were performed in mildly symptomatic bvFTD [defined by global FTLD Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR®+NACC FTLD) = 1] mutation carriers (Familial) and non‐mutation carriers (Sporadic) who are participants in the ARTFL LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD, www.allftd.org) study. Mutation carriers had a pathogenic mutation in the MAPT, GRN or C9orf72 gene. The presence of subjective memory impairment was defined by a rating >0 on the memory domain of the CDR®+NACC FTLD. Evidence of objective memory impairment was based on performance across 7 memory measures, which include the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set Version 3 – Craft Story Immediate Recall (CSImm) and Delayed Recall (CSDel), Benson Figure Delayed Recall (BenDel), and the California Verbal Learning Test – Learning (CVLearn), Immediate Recall (CVImm), Delayed Recall (CVDel), and Recognition (CVRecog). Performance was considered abnormal for z‐scores ≤ ‐1.5.ResultData from 38 Familial (mean age 60±8 years, 61% male), and 109 Sporadic (mean age 63±7 years, 70% male) participants were analyzed. Memory ratings >0 on the CDR®+NACC FTLD were common for both Familial (84%) and Sporadic (88%). The frequencies of abnormal performance in the Familial vs Sporadic groups, respectively, per memory measure were: CSImm 43.8% vs 45.9%, p = 0.83; CSDel 46.9% vs 52.6%, p = 0.58; BenDel 29.4% vs 46.4%, p = 0.08; CVLearn 54.8% vs 39.8, p = 0.14; CVImm 64.5% vs 50%, p = 0.16, CVDel 80.6% vs 55.1%, p = 0.01, and CVRecog 51.6 vs 49%, p = 0.80. The frequencies of abnormal performance did not differ (all p>0.05) between Familial and Sporadic for ≥2 tests (79.3% vs 67.7%), ≥4 tests (55.2% vs 44.1%) and ≥6 tests (34.5% vs 31.2%).ConclusionThese data suggest that among those with a mild global severity of bvFTD features: 1) subjective and objective memory impairment are relatively frequent, and 2) the frequency of impairment across memory measures is largely similar between familial and sporadic bvFTD. The presence of memory impairment should not preclude a diagnosis of bvFTD.