PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of( 18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and voxel-based morphometry (VBM) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the same group of patients with very mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Thirty patients with very mild AD (age 67.0+/-5.8 years; MMSE score 25.5+/-1.2, range 24-28), 32 patients with mild AD (age 67.0+/-4.5 years, MMSE score 22.1+/-0.8, range 21-23) and 60 age- and sex-matched normal volunteers underwent both FDG-PET and three-dimensional spoiled gradient echo MRI. Statistical parametric mapping was used to conduct voxel by voxel analysis and Z score mapping. First, the region of interest (ROI) maps of significant reductions in glucose metabolism and grey matter density in the mild AD patients were defined. Secondly, analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for Z scores in the ROI maps discriminating very mild AD patients and normal controls was performed. RESULTS: In mild AD patients, FDG-PET indicated significant reductions in glucose metabolism in the bilateral posterior cingulate gyri and the right parietotemporal area, while VBM analysis showed a significant decrease in grey matter volume density in the bilateral amygdala/hippocampus complex, compared with the normal control group. ROC analysis showed that in very mild AD patients the accuracy of FDG-PET diagnosis was 89% and that of VBM-MRI diagnosis was 83%. The accuracy of the combination of FDG-PET and VBM-MRI diagnosis was 94%. CONCLUSION: In very mild AD, both FDG-PET and VBM-MRI had high accuracy for diagnosis, but FDG-PET showed slightly higher accuracy than VBM-MRI. Combination of the two techniques will yield a higher diagnostic accuracy in very mild AD by making full use of functional and morphological images.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of( 18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and voxel-based morphometry (VBM) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the same group of patients with very mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Thirty patients with very mild AD (age 67.0+/-5.8 years; MMSE score 25.5+/-1.2, range 24-28), 32 patients with mild AD (age 67.0+/-4.5 years, MMSE score 22.1+/-0.8, range 21-23) and 60 age- and sex-matched normal volunteers underwent both FDG-PET and three-dimensional spoiled gradient echo MRI. Statistical parametric mapping was used to conduct voxel by voxel analysis and Z score mapping. First, the region of interest (ROI) maps of significant reductions in glucose metabolism and grey matter density in the mild ADpatients were defined. Secondly, analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for Z scores in the ROI maps discriminating very mild ADpatients and normal controls was performed. RESULTS: In mild ADpatients, FDG-PET indicated significant reductions in glucose metabolism in the bilateral posterior cingulate gyri and the right parietotemporal area, while VBM analysis showed a significant decrease in grey matter volume density in the bilateral amygdala/hippocampus complex, compared with the normal control group. ROC analysis showed that in very mild ADpatients the accuracy of FDG-PET diagnosis was 89% and that of VBM-MRI diagnosis was 83%. The accuracy of the combination of FDG-PET and VBM-MRI diagnosis was 94%. CONCLUSION: In very mild AD, both FDG-PET and VBM-MRI had high accuracy for diagnosis, but FDG-PET showed slightly higher accuracy than VBM-MRI. Combination of the two techniques will yield a higher diagnostic accuracy in very mild AD by making full use of functional and morphological images.
Authors: N Hirono; E Mori; K Ishii; Y Ikejiri; T Imamura; T Shimomura; M Hashimoto; H Yamashita; M Sasaki Journal: Neurology Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: M J de Leon; J Golomb; A E George; A Convit; C Y Tarshish; T McRae; S De Santi; G Smith; S H Ferris; M Noz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1993 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: E J Burton; G Karas; S M Paling; R Barber; E D Williams; C G Ballard; I G McKeith; P Scheltens; F Barkhof; J T O'Brien Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: S Lehéricy; M Baulac; J Chiras; L Piérot; N Martin; B Pillon; B Deweer; B Dubois; C Marsault Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N Hirono; E Mori; K Ishii; H Kitagaki; M Sasaki; Y Ikejiri; T Imamura; T Shimomura; M Ikeda; H Yamashita Journal: J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 1998 Impact factor: 2.198
Authors: L Mosconi; D Perani; S Sorbi; K Herholz; B Nacmias; V Holthoff; E Salmon; J-C Baron; M T R De Cristofaro; A Padovani; B Borroni; M Franceschi; L Bracco; A Pupi Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-12-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: H Matsuda; S Mizumura; K Nemoto; F Yamashita; E Imabayashi; N Sato; T Asada Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David S Karow; Linda K McEvoy; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Donald J Hagler; Robin G Jennings; James B Brewer; Carl K Hoh; Anders M Dale Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rafael González-Redondo; David García-García; Pedro Clavero; Carmen Gasca-Salas; Reyes García-Eulate; José L Zubieta; Javier Arbizu; José A Obeso; María C Rodríguez-Oroz Journal: Brain Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: David B Keator; James H Fallon; Anita Lakatos; Charless C Fowlkes; Steven G Potkin; Alexander Ihler Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: G D Rabinovici; W W Seeley; E J Kim; M L Gorno-Tempini; K Rascovsky; T A Pagliaro; S C Allison; C Halabi; J H Kramer; J K Johnson; M W Weiner; M S Forman; J Q Trojanowski; S J Dearmond; B L Miller; H J Rosen Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2007 Dec-2008 Jan Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: Jorge Cabello; Mathias Lukas; Elena Rota Kops; André Ribeiro; N Jon Shah; Igor Yakushev; Thomas Pyka; Stephan G Nekolla; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 9.236