Cited by 94Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Determinants of survival in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

Open access
Garcin, B., Lillo, P., Hornberger, M., Piguet, O., Dawson, K., Nestor, P. J., Hodges, J. R.·2009·Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a common cause of younger onset dementia. Little is known about its rate of progression but a recently identified subgroup seems to have an excellent prognosis. Other determinants of survival are unclear. METHODS: We analyzed survival in a large group of clinically diagnosed bvFTD patients (n = 91) with particular attention to demographic and clinical features at presentation. Of the 91 cases, 50 have died, with pathologic confirmation in 28. RESULTS: Median survival in the whole group was 9.0 years from symptom onset, and 5.4 years from diagnosis. After the exclusion of 24 "phenocopy" cases, the analysis was repeated in a subgroup of 67 patients. The mean age at symptom onset of the pathologic group was 58.5 years and 16% had a positive family history. Their median survival was 7.6 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.6-8.6) from symptom onset and 4.2 years (95% CI 3.4-5.0) from diagnosis. The only factor associated with shorter survival was the presence of language impairment at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with definite frontotemporal dementia have a poor prognosis which is worse if language deficits are also present. This contrasts with the extremely good outcome in those with the phenocopy syndrome: of our 24 patients only 1 has died (of coincident pathology) despite, in some cases, many years of follow-up.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181c1dee7

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garcin, B., Lillo, P., Hornberger, M., Piguet, O., Dawson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Hodges, J. R.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
Neurology
Published
2009-11-17
Volume
73
Issue
20
Pages
1656-1661
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2083348543
Cited by
94
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, survival, prognosis, language impairment, family history (medicine), age at symptom onset, pathologic confirmation, disease progression
MeSH terms
Family, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Language Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Frontotemporal Dementia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review