Language Impairment in the Genetic Forms of Behavioural Variant Frontotemporal Dementia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1416934/v1

PDF

Research Article

Language Impairment in the Genetic Forms of Behavioural Variant Frontotemporal Dementia

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1416934/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is characterised by a progressive change in personality in association with atrophy of the frontal and temporal lobes. Whilst language impairment has been described in people with bvFTD, little is currently known about the extent or type of linguistic difficulties that occur, particularly in the genetic forms.

Methods

Participants with genetic bvFTD along with healthy controls were recruited from the international multicentre Genetic FTD Initiative (GENFI) study. Linguistic symptoms were assessed using items from the Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale (PASS). Additionally, participants undertook the Boston Naming Test (BNT), modified Camel and Cactus Test (mCCT) and a test of category fluency. Participants also underwent a 3T volumetric T1-weighted MRI, with language network regional brain volumes measured and compared between the genetic groups and controls.

Results

76% of the genetic bvFTD cohort had impairment in at least one language symptom: 83% C9orf72, 80% MAPT and 56% GRN mutation carriers. All three genetic groups had significantly impaired functional communication, decreased fluency, and impaired sentence comprehension. C9orf72 mutation carriers also had significantly impaired articulation and word retrieval as well as dysgraphia whilst the MAPT mutation group also had impaired word retrieval and single word comprehension. All three groups had difficulties with naming, semantic knowledge and verbal fluency. Atrophy in key left perisylvian language regions differed between the groups, with more generalized involvement in the C9orf72 group and more focal temporal and insula involvement in the other groups. Correlates of language symptoms and test scores also differed between the groups.

Conclusions

Language deficits exist in a substantial proportion of people with familial bvFTD across all three genetic groups. Significant atrophy is seen in the dominant perisylvian language areas and correlates with language impairments within each of the genetic groups. Improved understanding of the language phenotype in the main genetic bvFTD subtypes will be helpful in future studies, particularly in clinical trials where accurate stratification and monitoring of disease progression is required.

frontotemporal dementia

genetics

language

tau

progranulin

C9orf72

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a neurodegenerative disorder affecting particularly those under the age of 65 [1]. The most common presentation is the behavioural variant (bvFTD) [2], which is characterised by a progressive change in personality including loss of inhibitory control, apathy, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, reduced empathy and altered dietary preferences [3]. The main cognitive domains affected in bvFTD are executive function and social cognition [3, 4]. However, impairment in other domains has been described including episodic memory [4, 5] and language [4, 6–8].

Language difficulties are the presenting symptoms of the primary progressive aphasias (PPA), another form of FTD, of which there are three main subtypes: nonfluent variant (nfvPPA), where there are difficulties with grammar and/or speech apraxia, semantic variant (svPPA), where there is impaired naming and word comprehension, and logopenic variant (lvPPA), in which there are word retrieval problems [9, 10]. Features of each of these three language variants have been described in people with bvFTD, but few studies have been performed to investigate the type or extent of linguistic impairment in bvFTD, and little is known about whether there are particular clinico-pathological associations for any of the symptoms [8, 11, 12].

Around a third of individuals with FTD have an autosomal dominant inheritance [13], with mutations in progranulin (GRN), microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) and chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72) being the most common causes [14]. BvFTD is the most frequent phenotype in all of the genetic forms of FTD with only a minority having PPA. However, like in sporadic disease, language problems have been described in people with genetic bvFTD [7, 15], albeit with little known so far about the exact features and whether differences exist between individuals within the main genetic groups (GRN, MAPT and C9orf72). Such information is important, not only to understand the disease better during the symptomatic period of the disorder, but also to further our knowledge of what symptoms to expect (and measure) in the prodromal stage of FTD. This would hopefully allow for improved stratification in clinical trials of disease-modifying treatments as well as more accurate measurement of treatment response.

This study therefore aims to explore the language phenotype of genetic bvFTD within the Genetic FTD Initiative (GENFI) cohort by investigating the linguistic features of the different genetic forms of FTD, including in relation to structural imaging measures.

Participants

Participants were recruited from the fifth data freeze of the GENFI study between 20 January 2012 and 30 May 2019, including sites in the UK, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. All aspects of the study were approved by local ethics committees, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Participants underwent a standardised clinical assessment including a clinical history and neurological examination, neuropsychometric assessment, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the CDR® plus NACC FTLD [16]. The CDR® plus NACC FTLD was used to classify mutation carriers as asymptomatic (global score of 0), prodromal (score 0.5) or symptomatic (score ≥ 1). In order to investigate the features of bvFTD, we reviewed all symptomatic mutation carriers recruited in the study and excluded those severely affected (CDR® plus NACC FTLD score of 3 i.e., only included those with a score of 1 or 2). In total 43 participants met consensus diagnostic criteria for bvFTD [3]: 24 with C9orf72 expansions, 9 with GRN mutations and 10 with MAPT mutations. A comparison group was generated from the GENFI healthy controls (i.e., non-mutation carriers) including those who were matched on age, sex, and years of education – this formed a control group of 100 participants (all with CDR® plus NACC FTLD of 0 or 0.5). Demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographics, clinical scores, linguistic symptoms, cognitive task data and regional brain volumes for the bvFTD groups and healthy controls. Data are shown as mean (standard deviation). Bold items are significantly different to controls; ^asignificantly impaired compared to *C9orf72* mutation carriers, ^bsignificantly impaired compared to *GRN* mutation carriers, ^csignificantly impaired compared to *MAPT* mutation carriers. Abbreviations: bvFTD, behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia; TIV, total intracranial volume.
	Controls	bvFTD
		C9orf72	GRN	MAPT
Number of participants	100	24	9	10
% Male	45	67	44	80
% Right-handed	95	96	100	70
Age (years)	60.2 (7.1)	62.3 (7.9)	67.2 (7.4)	59.1 (7.7)
Education (years)	13.5 (3.1)	14.5 (3.6)	12.0 (3.2)	13.4 (3.5)
MMSE	29.1 (1.2)	26.0 (3.4)	23.9 (5.1)	24.4 (5.0)
CDR® plus NACC FTLD Global score	0.1 (0.2)	1.6 (0.5)	1.7 (0.5)	1.8 (0.4)
CDR® plus NACC FTLD Sum of Boxes	0.3 (0.6)	8.5 (3.9)	8.0 (3.5)	9.0 (3.1)
Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale Sum of Boxes	0.1 (0.4)	2.7 (2.6)	2.2 (2.5)	3.3 (2.6)
Linguistic symptoms
Impaired articulation	0.07 (0.18)	0.27 (0.53)	0.06 (0.17)	0.10 (0.21)
Decreased fluency	0.00 (0.00)	0.44 (0.61)	0.39 (0.36)	0.55 (0.50)
Impaired grammar/syntax	0.00 (0.00)	0.06 (0.17)	0.11 (0.33)	0.15 (0.34)
Impaired word retrieval	0.08 (0.21)	0.48 (0.56)	0.44 (0.68)	0.80 (0.59)
Impaired speech repetition	0.01 (0.05)	0.04 (0.14)	0.06 (0.17)	0.00 (0.00)
Impaired sentence comprehension	0.00 (0.00)	0.38 (0.61)	0.22 (0.36)	0.45 (0.69)
Impaired single word comprehension	0.01 (0.05)	0.06 (0.17)	0.00 (0.00)	0.40 (0.66)^ab
Dyslexia	0.02 (0.12)	0.08 (0.41)	0.11 (0.33)	0.15 (0.24)
Dysgraphia	0.01 (0.05)	0.17 (0.32)	0.22 (0.44)	0.15 (0.34)
Impaired functional communication	0.03 (0.13)	0.73 (0.83)	0.56 (0.73)	0.55 (0.44)
Cognitive tasks
Boston Naming Test (/30)	27.8 (2.0)	23.9 (4.0)	24.3 (4.9)	17.0 (7.7)^ab
Modified Camel and Cactus Test (/32)	30.0 (1.5)	24.7 (5.2)	25.1 (4.3)	24.5 (5.9)
Category Fluency (max in 60s)	23.3 (5.6)	13.0 (6.2)	12.4 (6.6)	12.7 (5.2)
Regional left hemisphere brain volumes (as a % of TIV)
Inferior frontal gyrus	0.56 (0.06)	0.47 (0.09)^c	0.47 (0.08)	0.55 (0.06)
Insula	0.36 (0.03)	0.28 (0.04)	0.30 (0.02)	0.26 (0.05)^b
Motor cortex	1.36 (0.12)	1.21 (0.13)^c	1.22 (0.07)	1.33 (0.12)
Temporal pole	0.50 (0.06)	0.43 (0.08)	0.46 (0.07)	0.35 (0.09)^ab
Superior temporal gyrus	0.48 (0.05)	0.41 (0.04)	0.42 (0.05)	0.41 (0.04)
Supratemporal region	0.40 (0.04)	0.37 (0.04)	0.35 (0.05)	0.37 (0.04)
Angular gyrus	0.50 (0.06)	0.43 (0.05)^c	0.49 (0.08)	0.50 (0.08)

Language assessment

Language was assessed by a clinician using the GENFI linguistic symptom scale, which is based on the Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale (PASS) [17]. This contains ten language symptoms scored as per a clinical dementia rating scale i.e., 0 = asymptomatic, 0.5 = questionable/very mild, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe: impaired articulation, decreased fluency, impaired grammar/syntax, impaired word retrieval, impaired speech repetition, impaired sentence comprehension, impaired single word comprehension, dyslexia, dysgraphia, and impaired functional communication.

Cognitive assessment

Within the GENFI neuropsychology battery, the 30-item version of the Boston Naming Test [18, 19] (BNT), the modified Camel and Cactus Test [20] (mCCT) and category fluency (animals) were the linguistic measures used. The rest of the GENFI neuropsychology battery includes tests of attention and executive function including the Trail Making Test parts A and B (TMTA and TMTB), D-KEFS Color-Word Inference Test (CWIT), WAIS-R Digit Symbol test, and WMS-R Digit Span Forwards (DSF) and Backward (DSB) as well as tests of visuospatial skills (WASI Block Design), episodic memory (the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, FCSRT) and social cognition (mini-Social Cognition and Emotion Assessment, mini-SEA, which includes a Faux Pas test of theory of mind and a Facial Emotion Recognition Test).

Imaging

129 participants had a 3T volumetric T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan (46 Siemens Prisma, 18 Siemens Trio, 17 Siemens Skyra, 47 Philips Achieva, 1 GE Signa HD) of sufficient quality to be analysed: 37 patients with bvFTD (20 with C9orf72, 8 with GRN, and 9 with MAPT mutations) and 92 controls. Those without scans had either not been scanned due to contraindications or had a poor quality scan due to movement or other artefacts.

Volumetric MRI scans were first bias field corrected and whole brain parcellated using the geodesic information flow (GIF) algorithm [21], which is based on atlas propagation and label fusion. We focused on key language regions, calculating grey matter volumes of the cortex for seven left hemisphere perisylvian regions (Fig. 1a): inferior frontal gyrus, insula, motor cortex, temporal pole, superior temporal gyrus, supratemporal region, and angular gyrus. All measures were expressed as a percentage of total intracranial volume (TIV) computed with SPM12 v6470 (Statistical Parametric Mapping, Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London, UK) running under Matlab R2014b (Math Works, Natick, MA, USA) [22].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Stata/MP 16.1. Statistical tests of normality were performed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Demographics were compared between groups using either linear regression (age and education) or a chi-squared test (sex). Linear regressions adjusting for age and sex were used to compare the MMSE, CDR® plus NACC FTLD and PASS scores as well as the cognitive tasks and regional brain volumes between groups. Individual linguistic symptoms were compared in each disease group versus controls using linear regressions adjusting for age and sex, and 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals with 2000 repetitions (as there was minimal variation from zero in severity scores for the control group), and between genetic groups using an ordinal logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Comparisons between language-associated brain regions and both individual language symptoms and linguistic tasks was performed using Spearman rank correlations.

Demographics

No significant differences were seen between the groups in years of education, but the GRN mutation carriers were significantly older than controls (p = 0.007) and MAPT mutation carriers (p = 0.020), and the MAPT mutation group had more males than controls (Chi² = 4.46, p = 0.035) (Table 1).

Disease severity

The MMSE and CDR® plus NACC FTLD Sum of Boxes scores were significantly different to controls in each genetic group but there were no significant differences between the genetic groups (Table 1).

Language symptoms

76% of the total bvFTD cohort had impairment in at least one language symptom (33 out of 43 participants): 83% of the C9orf72 group, 56% of the GRN group and 80% of the MAPT group. In comparison, only 17% of the controls showed any impairment (Table 1, Fig. 2).

All three groups had significantly impaired functional communication compared to controls: severity mean 0.73 (standard deviation 0.83), frequency 58% in the C9orf72 expansion carriers, 0.56 (0.73), 44% in the GRN mutation carriers and 0.55 (0.44), 70% in the MAPT mutation carriers. Similarly, all groups had significantly decreased fluency (0.44 (0.61), 46% in the C9orf72 group, 0.39 (0.36), 56% in the GRN group and 0.55 (0.50), 60% in the MAPT group) and impaired sentence comprehension (0.38 (0.61), 29% in the C9orf72 group, 0.22 (0.36), 33% in the GRN group and 0.45 (0.69), 40% in the MAPT group) compared to controls.

However, the pattern of linguistic symptomatology otherwise varied across the genetic groups. For the C9orf72 group, impaired word retrieval (0.48 (0.56), 50%), impaired articulation (0.27 (0.53), 25%) and dysgraphia (0.17 (0.32), 14%) were significantly different to controls, whilst for the MAPT group impaired word retrieval (0.80 (0.59), 80%) was significantly different to controls and impaired single word comprehension (0.40 (0.66), 40%) was significantly different to both the other two genetic groups. No other symptoms were significantly different to controls or the other groups in the GRN mutation carriers.

Cognitive assessment

The C9orf72 and MAPT groups scored significantly lower than controls on the BNT (p < 0.001, Table 1), with a trend to a lower score in the GRN group (p = 0.060). The MAPT mutation carriers scored the lowest of the three groups, significantly lower than the C9orf72 and GRN mutation carrier groups (p = 0.006 and p = 0.008 respectively). All three groups scored significantly lower than controls on the mCCT (C9orf72, p < 0.001; GRN, p = 0.005, MAPT, p = 0.009), and on category fluency (p < 0.001 for all three groups).

As expected, in the other cognitive tasks, all three genetic bvFTD groups showed evidence of executive dysfunction and impaired social cognition (Supplementary Table 1, Additional File 1). Additionally, significantly lower scores on the FCSRT and Block Design were seen in all three groups compared with controls, with DSF also significantly impaired in the C9orf72 group (Supplementary Table 1, Additional File 1).

Imaging analysis

All the left hemisphere regional brain volumes were significantly reduced compared to controls in the C9orf72 expansion carriers (Table 1, Fig. 1b): insula (78% of mean control volume, p < 0.001), inferior frontal gyrus (84%, p = 0.002), superior temporal gyrus (85%, p < 0.001), temporal pole (86%, p < 0.001), angular gyrus (86%, p < 0.001), motor cortex (89%, p < 0.001) and supratemporal region (93%, p = 0.005). Inferior frontal gyrus, motor cortex and angular gyrus were significantly lower in volume compared to MAPT mutation carriers (p = 0.027, 0.012, and 0.005 respectively).

The GRN group had significantly reduced volume compared to controls in the insula (83%, p < 0.001), superior temporal gyrus (88%, p = 0.005), supratemporal region (88%, p = 0.041), and motor cortex (90%, p = 0.003), with a trend to a decreased volume in the inferior frontal gyrus (84%, p = 0.051) (Table 1, Fig. 1b).

The temporal pole was the most atrophied region in the MAPT mutation carriers (70%, p < 0.001) significantly lower than controls and the other mutation groups. The insula (72%, p < 0.001), superior temporal gyrus (85%, p < 0.001) and supratemporal region (93%, p = 0.043) were also significantly lower in volume compared with controls (Table 1, Fig. 1b).

For the linguistic symptoms, in the C9orf72 group, impaired articulation significantly negatively correlated with volume of the inferior frontal gyrus (r = -0.64, p = 0.002) and motor cortex (r = -0.59, p = 0.008) whilst decreased fluency also negatively correlated with motor cortex volume (r = -0.65, p = 0.002) as well as insula volume (r = -0.54, p = 0.016) (Supplementary Table 2, Additional File 2). Impaired word retrieval negatively correlated with motor cortex volume (r = -0.51, p = 0.025), and impaired functional communication negatively correlated with insula volume (r = -0.54, p = 0.009). In the GRN group, impaired sentence comprehension negatively correlated with the volume of temporal regions: temporal pole (r = -0.73, p = 0.040); superior temporal gyrus (r = -0.78, p = 0.021), and supratemporal region (r = -0.73, p = 0.040). Finally, in the MAPT group, decreased fluency (r = -0.87, p = 0.012), impaired single word comprehension (r = -0.79, p = 0.034), and dyslexia (r = -0.79, p = 0.034) all negatively correlated with inferior frontal gyrus volume, whilst impaired sentence comprehension negatively correlated with angular gyrus volume (r = -0.80, p = 0.030).

In the C9orf72 group there was a strong positive correlation between scores on the linguistic cognitive tasks and left inferior frontal gyrus, left insula and left angular gyrus volumes (Table 2): BNT (inferior frontal gyrus r = 0.50, p = 0.029; angular gyrus r = 0.77, p = < 0.001); mCCT (inferior frontal gyrus r = 0.47, p = 0.044; insula r = 0.61, p = 0.005; angular gyrus r = 0.47, p = 0.043); CF (inferior frontal gyrus r = 0.67, p = 0.002; insula r = 0.50, p = 0.029). In the GRN group, there was a significant positive correlation between BNT score and temporal volumes: superior temporal gyrus r = 0.82, p = 0.013; supratemporal region r = 0.80, p = 0.018. Although there were no significant correlations of mCCT score with volumes, CF score was correlated with left insula and angular gyrus volumes (r = 0.86, p = 0.007; r = 0.74, p = 0.038 respectively). In MAPT mutation carriers a strong positive correlation was seen between mCCT score and left superior temporal gyrus volume (r = 0.93, p = 0.003) but no significant correlations were seen for the BNT or CF scores.

Table 2

Correlations between the linguistic cognitive tasks and left hemisphere regional brain volumes in each genetic group. Rho is shown for each correlation, with significant values shown in bold. Abbreviations: BNT, Boston Naming Test; mCCT, modified Camel and Cactus Test; CF, category fluency.
		BNT	mCCT	CF
Inferior frontal gyrus	C9orf72	0.50	0.47	0.67
	GRN	-0.19	0.00	0.58
	MAPT	-0.14	-0.11	0.16
Insula	C9orf72	0.35	0.61	0.50
	GRN	0.16	0.21	0.86
	MAPT	0.63	0.48	0.34
Motor Cortex	C9orf72	0.12	0.40	0.37
	GRN	0.35	0.31	0.45
	MAPT	-0.34	-0.07	0.41
Temporal pole	C9orf72	0.06	0.05	-0.20
	GRN	0.43	0.38	0.46
	MAPT	0.41	0.15	-0.20
Superior temporal gyrus	C9orf72	0.08	0.33	0.11
	GRN	0.82	0.48	0.17
	MAPT	0.45	0.93	0.56
Supratemporal region	C9orf72	0.26	0.14	0.17
	GRN	0.80	0.14	-0.02
	MAPT	0.67	0.56	0.23
Angular gyrus	C9orf72	0.77	0.47	0.36
	GRN	0.06	0.21	0.74
	MAPT	-0.74	-0.26	-0.05

In this study we have shown that language impairment is present in a substantial proportion of people with the genetic form of bvFTD. Furthermore, significant atrophy is seen in the dominant perisylvian language regions and correlates with linguistic features in each of the three genetic groups. Three symptoms were seen significantly more than controls in all three genetic groups: impaired functional communication, decreased fluency and impaired sentence comprehension. Each group also had problems with naming, semantic knowledge and verbal fluency. However, differences were also present, with the MAPT mutation group having difficulties with single word comprehension and the C9orf72 group having impaired articulation and dysgraphia. Similarly, whilst the three genetic groups had overlapping left insula atrophy, there were differences between them, with inferior frontal involvement particularly in the C9orf72 group, anterior temporal atrophy in MAPT mutation carriers, and superior temporal volume loss in the GRN mutation carriers.

All three groups had difficulties with impaired functional communication. Whilst this could be in part due to individual or combined linguistic deficits, previous studies have shown that people with bvFTD can be impaired in conversational discourse and the pragmatics of language [23, 24]. People with bvFTD can have difficulties with participating in communication in the first place [24], as well as how best to communicate effectively [23]. These deficits are likely to arise from a combination of executive function and social cognition deficits that are present here in each of the three genetic groups [25, 26].

Similarly, impaired sentence comprehension was seen in all three groups. Difficulties in this domain can be due to abnormal grammatical processing, but this was not significantly impaired in any of the groups within this cohort. Problems in sentence comprehension can also be due to the inability to hold the sentence in short term memory, as is seen in people with lvPPA, with shorter sentences easier to comprehend than longer ones [27]. The C9orf72 mutation carriers had significantly shorter forwards digit span than controls (with a trend in GRN mutation carriers), but whilst this may have contributed to impaired sentence comprehension, this deficit in short term memory was not as severe as that seen in lvPPA. Lastly, separate to grammar and short term memory, prior research in FTD has suggested a role for decreased executive resources as a contributor to impaired sentence comprehension [28, 29], and certainly all three groups had significant executive dysfunction on testing here. It may well be therefore that a combination of executive dysfunction and impaired short term memory lead to impaired sentence comprehension across the different groups.

Also seen in all three groups was decreased fluency. This can be caused by multiple underlying linguistic deficits including changes in articulation, grammar and word retrieval as well as an impairment of word generation or prosody [30]. The C9orf72 mutation group had significant articulatory deficits and both C9orf72 and MAPT mutation groups had word retrieval problems, but all three groups also had decreased verbal fluency scores compared to controls. Word generation difficulties are a major contributor to decreased verbal fluency scores in bvFTD [31], with associated executive dysfunction being an important cause [32]. Prosodic changes have also previously been noted in bvFTD with changes in different aspects of speech timing found in one study [30]. It is therefore likely that the decreased fluency noted on the linguistic symptom scale here is multifactorial in each group with contributions from different factors.

The C9orf72 mutation carriers had the most language impairment of any of the groups, with 83% having deficits in at least one symptom. As well as the difficulties above, 25% of patients were noted to have impaired articulation. It was not noted if this was due to apraxia of speech, dysarthria or other reasons in the symptom scales, but the score did correlate with atrophy in the inferior frontal gyrus and motor cortex. None of these carriers had an associated diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but prior studies have shown the presence of motor deficits in people with FTD that do not meet criteria for ALS [33]. Correlation with inferior frontal cortex volume and/or the insula was seen also for decreased fluency and performance on the cognitive language tasks, suggesting that the impairments are not just down to motor speech deficits but that there are true language-based speech production difficulties as well. The C9orf72 group had more widespread involvement of the perisylvian language areas in general, including more posterior regions like the angular gyrus. Interestingly, scores on the BNT and mCCT both correlated significantly with angular gyrus atrophy. This region forms part of what has been called Geschwind’s area and is associated with multiple language functions [34] including word retrieval and semantic processing as well as writing, which is also impaired in the C9orf72 mutation carrier group. It is therefore likely that the more extensive linguistic deficits seen in this group relate to the wider involvement of key linguistic regions in the brain as the disease progresses in addition to a contribution from executive dysfunction. As mentioned above, this latter cognitive deficit is likely to be a factor in a number of apparent language problems [32], including the decreased score in the mCCT, which has previously been shown to be related to the executive control of semantic knowledge [20].

80% of the MAPT mutation group had linguistic symptoms with single word comprehension being impaired more than the other two groups, and with the lowest naming scores of all three groups. The group also had impairments in the mCCT and in verbal fluency. Previous studies of MAPT-associated bvFTD have highlighted the presence of semantic impairment, a feature that can occur quite early in the disease process, even prodromally [20, 35, 36]. This is generally associated with atrophy of the anterior temporal lobes (the ‘semantic hub’), as is seen prominently here, with mCCT score correlating with temporal lobe atrophy. Interestingly, there was also a correlation of decreased fluency, impaired single word comprehension and dyslexia with inferior frontal gyrus volume in this group, suggesting more wider contributions to the language deficits.

The GRN-bvFTD had the least linguistic symptomatology of all the groups. This sits in contrast to GRN mutations being the commonest cause of PPA in genetic FTD, with usually either a nonfluent variant or a mixed (not otherwise specified) phenotype [37, 38]. It may be that many of the linguistic deficits seen here are related to the executive dysfunction found in the group, but in fact impaired sentence comprehension as well as BNT score correlated with temporal lobe volumes, suggesting a primary linguistic impairment, potentially of semantics within the GRN group.

Limitations

In general, despite a well-defined cohort in the GENFI study, once groups were stratified the numbers that could be studied were much smaller. Further studies of larger genetic FTD cohorts to replicate these findings will be helpful. Another limitation was the limited availability of language cognitive tests within the GENFI battery. There is a lack of validated cross-language verbal linguistic tasks in general and, with multiple languages represented in the GENFI study, the cognitive battery has mostly non-verbal or already validated tasks. Future studies should therefore develop novel cross-language tasks with normative data that can be used in multinational studies like GENFI.

Despite a primary bvFTD diagnosis, language problems are present extensively in genetic FTD, with overlapping but distinct patterns of linguistic deficits and associated brain atrophy. Improved understanding of the relationship between bvFTD and its language phenotype will aid more focused assessments and interpretations of data within FTD studies. This in turn will guide the future stratification of individuals within clinical trials as well as the monitoring of disease progression and treatment response.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ALS

Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia bvFTD

Boston Naming Test BNT

Chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 C9orf72

D-KEFS Color-Word Interference Test CWIT

Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test FCSRT

Frontotemporal dementia FTD

Genetic frontotemporal dementia initiative GENFI

Geodesic information flow GIF

Logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia lvPPA

Magnetic resonance imaging MRI

Microtubule-associated protein tau MAPT

Mini-Mental State Examination MMSE

Mini-Social Cognition and Emotion Assessment mini-SEA

Modified Camel and Cactus Test mCCT

Non fluent variant primary progressive aphasia nfvPPA

Primary progressive aphasia PPA

Progranulin GRN

Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale PASS

Semantic variant primary progressive aphasia svPPA

Total intracranial volume TIV

Trail Making Test TMT

WMS-R Digit Span Forward/Backward DSF/DSB

Acknowledgments

We thank the research participants and their families for their contribution to the study. Several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases ‐ Project ID No 739510.

Author contributions

KS, JDR and LLR contributed to the conception and design of the work and the analysis of the data. AMM contributed to the analysis of the data. All authors contributed to the acquisition and interpretation of the data and revised the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The Dementia Research Centre is supported by Alzheimer's Research UK, Alzheimer's Society, Brain Research UK, and The Wolfson Foundation. This work was supported by the NIHR UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre (LWENC) Clinical Research Facility, and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer's Society and Alzheimer's Research UK. This work was also supported by the JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019-02248; to JDR, MO, BB, CG, JvS and MS. [latter via DLR/DFG 01ED2008B]). JDR is supported by the Miriam Marks Brain Research UK Senior Fellowship and has received funding from an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH). This work was also supported by the MRC UK GENFI grant (MR/M023664/1), the Bluefield Project and the JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019-02248). Several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases - Project ID No 739510. RC/CG are supported by a Frontotemporal Dementia Research Studentships in Memory of David Blechner funded through The National Brain Appeal (RCN 290173). MB is supported by a Fellowship award from the Alzheimer’s Society, UK (AS-JF-19a-004-517). MB’s work is also supported by the UK Dementia Research Institute which receives its funding from DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. JCVS was supported by the Dioraphte Foundation grant 09-02-03-00, the Association for Frontotemporal Dementias Research Grant 2009, The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) grant HCMI 056-13-018, ZonMw Memorabel (Deltaplan Dementie, project number 733 051 042), Alzheimer Nederland and the Bluefield project. FM received funding from the Tau Consortium and the Center for Networked Biomedical Research on Neurodegenerative Disease (CIBERNED). RS-V is supported by an Alzheimer’s Research UK Clinical Research Training Fellowship (ARUK-CRF2017B-2), and has received funding from Fundació Marató de TV3, Spain (grant no. 20143810). CG received funding from JPND-Prefrontals VR Dnr 529-2014-7504, VR 2015-02926 and 2018-02754, the Swedish FTD Inititative-Schörling Foundation, Alzheimer Foundation, Brain Foundation and Stockholm County Council ALF. MM has received funding from a Canadian Institute of Health Research operating grant and the Weston Brain Institute and Ontario Brain Institute. JBR has received funding from the Welcome Trust (103838) and is supported by the Cambridge University Centre for Frontotemporal Dementia, the Medical Research Council (SUAG/051 G101400) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). EF has received funding from a CIHR grant #327387. DG received support from the EU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) and the Italian Ministry of Health (PreFrontALS) grant 733051042. RV has received funding from the Mady Browaeys Fund for Research into Frontotemporal Dementia. MO has received funding from BMBF (FTLDc). JL received funding for this work by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (EXC 2145 SyNergy – ID 390857198).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All GENFI sites had local ethical approval for the study, and all participants gave written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Hodges, J., et al., Survival in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology, 2003. 61(3): p. 349–354.
Hogan, D.B., et al., The prevalence and incidence of frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 2016. 43(S1): p. S96-S109.
Rascovsky, K., et al., Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain, 2011. 134(9): p. 2456–2477.
Neary, D., et al., Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology, 1998. 51(6): p. 1546–1554.
Hornberger, M., et al., How preserved is episodic memory in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia? Neurology, 2010. 74(6): p. 472–479.
Cheran, G., et al., Cognitive indicators of preclinical behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia in MAPT carriers. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2019. 25(2): p. 184–194.
Hardy, C.J.D., et al., The language profile of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 2016. 50(2): p. 359–371.
Saxon, J.A., et al., Examining the language and behavioural profile in FTD and ALS-FTD. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2017. 88(8): p. 675–680.
Gorno-Tempini, M.L., et al., Cognition and anatomy in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Annals of Neurology: Official Journal of the American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society, 2004. 55(3): p. 335–346.
Neary, D., et al., Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology, 1998. 51(6): p. 1546–1554.
Geraudie, A., et al., Speech and language impairments in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2021. 131: p. 1076–1095.
Staffaroni, A.M., et al., Uniform data set language measures for bvFTD and PPA diagnosis and monitoring. Alzheimers Dement (Amst), 2021. 13(1): p. e12148.
Rohrer, J., et al., The heritability and genetics of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Neurology, 2009. 73(18): p. 1451–1456.
Warren, J.D., J.D. Rohrer, and M.N. Rossor, Clinical review. Frontotemporal dementia. BMJ, 347, f4827. Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale, 2013.
Garrard, P. and E. Carroll, Presymptomatic semantic impairment in a case of fronto–temporal lobar degeneration associated with the + 16 mutation in MAPT. Neurocase, 2005. 11(5): p. 371–383.
Miyagawa, T., et al., Use of the CDR® plus NACC FTLD in mild FTLD: data from the ARTFL/LEFFTDS consortium. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 2020. 16(1): p. 79–90.
Sapolsky, D., K. Domoto-Reilly, and B.C. Dickerson, Use of the Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale (PASS) in monitoring speech and language status in PPA. Aphasiology, 2014. 28(8–9): p. 993–1003.
Graves, R., et al., Boston naming test short forms: a comparison of previous forms with new item response theory based forms. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 2004. 26(7): p. 891–902.
Mack, W.J., et al., Boston Naming Test: shortened versions for use in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of gerontology, 1992. 47(3): p. P154-P158.
Moore, K., et al., A modified Camel and Cactus Test detects presymptomatic semantic impairment in genetic frontotemporal dementia within the GENFI cohort. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 2021: p. 1–8.
Cardoso, M.J., et al., Geodesic information flows: spatially-variant graphs and their application to segmentation and fusion. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2015. 34(9): p. 1976–1988.
Malone, I.B., et al., Accurate automatic estimation of total intracranial volume: a nuisance variable with less nuisance. Neuroimage, 2015. 104: p. 366–372.
Healey, M.L., et al., Getting on the same page: the neural basis for social coordination deficits in behavioral variant frontotemporal degeneration. Neuropsychologia, 2015. 69: p. 56–66.
Rousseaux, M., et al., An analysis of communication in conversation in patients with dementia. Neuropsychologia, 2010. 48(13): p. 3884–90.
Healey, M., et al., More Than Words: Extra-Sylvian Neuroanatomic Networks Support Indirect Speech Act Comprehension and Discourse in Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia. Front Hum Neurosci, 2020. 14: p. 598131.
Luzzi, S., et al., The neural bases of discourse semantic and pragmatic deficits in patients with frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Cortex, 2020. 128: p. 174–191.
Gorno-Tempini, M.L., et al., The logopenic/phonological variant of primary progressive aphasia. Neurology, 2008. 71(16): p. 1227–1234.
Grossman, M., J. Rhee, and P. Moore, Sentence processing in frontotemporal dementia. Cortex, 2005. 41(6): p. 764–77.
Peelle, J.E., et al., Sentence comprehension and voxel-based morphometry in progressive nonfluent aphasia, semantic dementia, and nonaphasic frontotemporal dementia. J Neurolinguistics, 2008. 21(5): p. 418–432.
Vogel, A.P., et al., Motor speech signature of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: Refining the phenotype. Neurology, 2017. 89(8): p. 837–844.
Laisney, M., et al., The underlying mechanisms of verbal fluency deficit in frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. J Neurol, 2009. 256(7): p. 1083–94.
Snowden, J.S., et al., Distinct clinical and pathological characteristics of frontotemporal dementia associated with C 9ORF72 mutations. Brain, 2012. 135(3): p. 693–708.
Burrell, J.R., et al., Motor neuron dysfunction in frontotemporal dementia. Brain, 2011. 134(9): p. 2582–2594.
Seghier, M.L., The angular gyrus: multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. Neuroscientist, 2013. 19(1): p. 43–61.
Pickering-Brown, S.M., et al., Frequency and clinical characteristics of progranulin mutation carriers in the Manchester frontotemporal lobar degeneration cohort: comparison with patients with MAPT and no known mutations. Brain, 2008. 131(3): p. 721–731.
Pickering-Brown, S., et al., Inherited frontotemporal dementia in nine British families associated with intronic mutations in the tau gene. Brain, 2002. 125(4): p. 732–751.
Harris, J.M., et al., Sensitivity and specificity of FTDC criteria for behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Neurology, 2013. 80(20): p. 1881–1887.
Sajjadi, S.A., et al., Primary progressive aphasia: a tale of two syndromes and the rest. Neurology, 2012. 78(21): p. 1670–1677.

No competing interests reported.

AdditionalMaterialFile1.xlsx
Additional File 1 (.xlsx). Neuropsychology assessment scores for the bvFTD groups and controls. Bold items are significantly different to controls; ^asignificantly impaired compared to C9orf72 mutation carriers, ^bsignificantly impaired compared to GRN mutation carriers, ^csignificantly impaired compared to MAPT mutation carriers.
AdditionalMaterialFile2.xlsx
Additional File 2 (.xlsx). Correlations between the linguistic symptoms and left hemisphere regional brain volumes in each genetic group. Rho is shown for each correlation, with significant values shown highlighted and in bold. Abbreviations: comp = comprehension.

PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
09 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
03 May, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
04 Mar, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
03 Mar, 2022
First submitted to journal
03 Mar, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Language Impairment in the Genetic Forms of Behavioural Variant Frontotemporal Dementia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Background

Methods

Participants

Language assessment

Cognitive assessment

Imaging

Statistical analysis

Results

Demographics

Disease severity

Language symptoms

Cognitive assessment

Imaging analysis

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Competing Interests

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1