Table 3.
Studies of survival in FTLD
| Location | Basis of diagnosis | No. of subjects | Mean age at diagnosis | Delay in diagnosis | Survival from onset or diagnosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survival from diagnosis | |||||
| San Francisco (Roberson et al. 2005) | Clinical diagnoses | 177 | 58.5+9.4 | 4.5+2.9 | 3.6+0.4 |
| San Diego (Rascovsky et al. 2005) | Pathologically confirmed | 70 | 65+9.4 | 4.0+2.8 | 4.2 |
| Sydney (Garcin et al. 2009) | Clinical diagnoses | 91 | 57.2+8.2 (onset) | 3.6+2.5 | 4.2+0.8a |
| Cambridge and Sydney (Hodges et al. 2003) | Pathologically confirmed | 61 | 61.5+7.6 | 3 | 3.0+0.4 |
| Survival from onset | |||||
| Rochester MN (Josephs et al. 2005) | Pathologically confirmed | 45 | 57.3+11.1 (onset) | – | 6.6 |
| Philadelphia (Xie et al. 2008) | Pathologically confirmed | 71 | 61+9.5 (onset) | 1+1 | 6.6+0.5 |
| Netherlands (Chiu et al. 2010) | Clinical diagnoses | 354 | 57.5+8.9 | – | 9.9+0.7 |
a
Cases of “bvFTD phenocopy were excluded” (Davies et al. 2006). If those cases were included, survival from diagnosis was 5.5+4.1