Sensitivity and Specificity of the Boston Criteria Version 2.0 for the Diagnosis of Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy in a Community-Based Sample.

Background And Objectives: The Boston criteria are a set of clinical and neuroimaging features that enable accurate diagnosis of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) without invasive methods such as brain biopsies or autopsy. The last updates to the Boston criteria, named version 2.0, were recently released and incorporated new nonhemorrhagic MRI features. These criteria have been validated in symptomatic samples, with improved diagnostic yield. We set out to investigate the accuracy of the Boston criteria v2.0 for the diagnosis of CAA in a community-based sample.

Methods: Participants were recruited from longitudinal clinical-pathologic studies of aging conducted at the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center in Chicago: the Religious Orders Study and the Rush Memory and Aging Project. Deceased participants with in vivo 3T MRI and detailed pathologic data available were included in the analysis. We compared the diagnostic yield of the current and earlier versions of the Boston criteria in our sample. Among those classified as probable CAA according to the Boston criteria v2.0, we investigated the ability of each neuroimaging marker to distinguish between false-positive and true-positive cases.

Results: In total, 134 individuals were included in the study (mean age = 82.4 ± 6.0 years; 69.4% F), and 49 of them were considered pathology-proven definite cases with CAA (mean age = 82.9 ± 6.0 years; 63.3% F). The Boston criteria versions 1.0 and 1.5 yielded similar sensitivity (26.5%, both), specificity (90.6% and 89.4%, respectively), and predictive values (negative: 68.1% and 67.9%; positive: 61.9% and 59.1%, respectively). The recently released Boston criteria v2.0 offered higher sensitivity (38.8%) and slightly lower specificity (83.5%). Among those classified as probable CAA (v2.0), pathology-proven true-positive cases had higher numbers of strictly cortical lobar microbleeds compared with false-positive cases ( = 0.004).

Discussion: Similar to findings from symptomatic samples, the inclusion of nonhemorrhagic neuroimaging markers in the updated Boston criteria offered a 12.3% gain in sensitivity among community-dwelling individuals, at the expense of a 5.9% drop in specificity. In cases with probable CAA, the cortical location of microbleeds may represent a promising distinguishing feature between true-positive and false-positive cases. Despite its improved performance, the diagnostic sensitivity of the updated criteria in a community-based sample remains limited.

Classification Of Evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that the Boston criteria v2.0 accurately distinguishes people with CAA from those without CAA.