Boston criteria v2.0 for cerebral amyloid angiopathy without hemorrhage: An MRI-neuropathological validation study - Switzer, Aaron; Charidimou, Antreas; McCarter, Stuart J.; Vemuri, Prashanthi; Nguyen, Aivi; Przybelski, Scott A.; Lesnick, Timothy G.; Rabinstein, Alejandro A.; Brown, Robert D.; Knopman, David S.; Petersen, Ronald C.; Jack, Clifford R.; et al. (medRxiv, 2023)
BACKGROUND Updated criteria for the clinical-MRI diagnosis of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) have recently been proposed. However, their performance in individuals without intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or transient focal neurological episodes (TFNE) is unknown. We assessed the diagnostic performance of the Boston criteria version 2.0 for CAA diagnosis in a cohort of individuals presenting without symptomatic ICH.METHODS 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 to v1.5 using histopathologically verified CAA as the reference standard.RESULTS Median age at MRI was 75 years (IQR 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 (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 was not superior in performance compared to the prior v1.5 criteria for either CAA diagnostic category.CONCLUSIONS 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.Competing Interest StatementD.S. Knopman serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for the DIAN study. He served on a Data Safety monitoring Board for a tau therapeutic for Biogen but receives no personal compensation. He is a site investigator in the Biogen aducanumab trials. He is an investigator in a clinical trial sponsored by Lilly Pharmaceuticals and the University of Southern California. He serves as a consultant for Samus Therapeutics, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences but receives no personal compensation. R.C. Petersen serves as a consultant for Roche, Inc., Genentech Inc., Nestle, Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., and Eisai, Inc., receives publishing royalties from Mild Cognitive Impairment (Oxford University Press, 2003), and UpToDate. C. R. Jack, A. A. Rabinstein, R. R. Reichard, and P. Shemuri receive research support from the NIH. . J. Graff-Radford serves on the DSMB for STROKENET and receives research support from the NIH. The other authors declare no financial or other conflict of interest.Clinical TrialThis is not a clinical trial.Funding StatementNational Institute on Aging of (NIH) under Award Numbers K76AG057015, AG006786, AG011378, AG16574), the National Institute for Neurologic Disorders and Stroke NS097495, and the GHR Foundation.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Mayo Clinic Institutional Review BoardI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon request.