Role of Enlarged Perivascular Space in the Temporal Lobe in Cerebral Amyloidosis

Objective Although growing evidence suggests that perivascular space (PVS) serves as a clearance route for amyloid and tau, the association between enlarged PVS (EPVS) and Alzheimer disease is highly inconsistent across studies. As the conventional visual rating systems for EPVS were insufficient to predict amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) status, we developed a new rating scale for EPVS located in the temporal lobe (T‐EPVS). Methods EPVS located in the basal ganglia (BG‐EPVS), centrum semiovale (CS‐EPVS), and T‐EPVS was visually rated in 272 individuals (healthy controls, n = 96; mild cognitive impairment, n = 106; dementia, n = 70) who underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and dual positron emission tomography scans ( 18 F‐flortaucipir and 18 F‐florbetaben). T‐EPVS and BG‐EPVS were defined as high degree when the counts in any hemisphere were >10, and the CS‐EPVS cutoff was >20. Logistic regression models were constructed to investigate whether the regional EPVS burden was predictive of A/T/N status. The derived models were externally validated in a temporal validation cohort (n = 195) that underwent MRI studies using a different scanner. Results Compared with those with low‐degree T‐EPVS (23/136, 16.9%), individuals with high‐degree T‐EPVS/CS‐EPVS but low‐degree BG‐EPVS were more likely to exhibit amyloid positivity (46/56, 82.1%). High‐degree T‐EPVS burden (odds ratio [OR] = 7.251, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.296–15.952) and low‐degree BG‐EPVS (OR = 0.241, 95% CI = 0.109–0.530) were predictive of amyloid positivity. Although high‐degree T‐EPVS was associated with tau positivity, the association was no longer significant after adjusting for amyloid and neurodegeneration status. Interpretation Investigating the burden and topographic distribution of EPVS including T‐EPVS may be useful for predicting amyloid status, indicating that impaired perivascular drainage may contribute to cerebral amyloidosis. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:965–978