BACKGROUND: N-methyl[11C]2-(4'methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxy-benzothiazole (PIB) is a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer with amyloid binding properties which allows in vivo measurement of cerebral amyloid load in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a syndrome that can be clinically difficult to distinguish from AD, but in FTD amyloid deposition is not a characteristic pathological finding. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate PIB retention in FTD. METHODS: Ten patients with the diagnosis of FTD participated. The diagnosis was based on clinical and neuropsychological examination, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan, and PET with 18 Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG). The PIB retention, measured in regions of interest, was normalised to a reference region (cerebellum). The results were compared with PIB retention data previously obtained from 17 AD patients with positive PIB retention and eight healthy controls (HC) with negative PIB retention. Statistical analysis was performed with a students t-test with significance level set to 0.00625 after Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Eight FTD patients showed significantly lower PIB retention compared to AD in frontal (p < 0.0001), parietal (p < 0.0001), temporal (p = 0.0001), and occipital (p = 0.0003) cortices as well as in putamina (p < 0.0001). The PIB uptake in these FTD patients did not differ significantly from the HC in any region. However, two of the 10 FTD patients showed PIB retention similar to AD patients. CONCLUSION: The majority of FTD patients displayed no PIB retention. Thus, PIB could potentially aid in differentiating between FTD and AD.
BACKGROUND: N-methyl[11C]2-(4'methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxy-benzothiazole (PIB) is a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer with amyloid binding properties which allows in vivo measurement of cerebral amyloid load in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a syndrome that can be clinically difficult to distinguish from AD, but in FTD amyloid deposition is not a characteristic pathological finding. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate PIB retention in FTD. METHODS: Ten patients with the diagnosis of FTD participated. The diagnosis was based on clinical and neuropsychological examination, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan, and PET with 18 Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG). The PIB retention, measured in regions of interest, was normalised to a reference region (cerebellum). The results were compared with PIB retention data previously obtained from 17 ADpatients with positive PIB retention and eight healthy controls (HC) with negative PIB retention. Statistical analysis was performed with a students t-test with significance level set to 0.00625 after Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Eight FTDpatients showed significantly lower PIB retention compared to AD in frontal (p < 0.0001), parietal (p < 0.0001), temporal (p = 0.0001), and occipital (p = 0.0003) cortices as well as in putamina (p < 0.0001). The PIB uptake in these FTDpatients did not differ significantly from the HC in any region. However, two of the 10 FTDpatients showed PIB retention similar to ADpatients. CONCLUSION: The majority of FTDpatients displayed no PIB retention. Thus, PIB could potentially aid in differentiating between FTD and AD.
Authors: Brian J Lopresti; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Jessica A Hoge; Scott K Ziolko; Xueling Lu; Carolyn C Meltzer; Kurt Schimmel; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Steven T DeKosky; Julie C Price Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C M Hulette; K A Welsh-Bohmer; M G Murray; A M Saunders; D C Mash; L M McIntyre Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Henry Engler; Anton Forsberg; Ove Almkvist; Gunnar Blomquist; Emma Larsson; Irina Savitcheva; Anders Wall; Anna Ringheim; Bengt Långström; Agneta Nordberg Journal: Brain Date: 2006-07-19 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Yong Jeong; Sang Soo Cho; Jung Mi Park; Sue J Kang; Jae Sung Lee; Eunjoo Kang; Duk L Na; Sang Eun Kim Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D S Knopman; J E Parisi; A Salviati; M Floriach-Robert; B F Boeve; R J Ivnik; G E Smith; D W Dickson; K A Johnson; L E Petersen; W C McDonald; H Braak; R C Petersen Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: William E Klunk; Yanming Wang; Guo-feng Huang; Manik L Debnath; Daniel P Holt; Li Shao; Ronald L Hamilton; Milos D Ikonomovic; Steven T DeKosky; Chester A Mathis Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Dustin Hammers; Elizabeth Spurgeon; Kelly Ryan; Carol Persad; Judith Heidebrink; Nancy Barbas; Roger Albin; Kirk Frey; David Darby; Bruno Giordani Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: David A Wolk; Julie C Price; Charles Madeira; Judy A Saxton; Beth E Snitz; Oscar L Lopez; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk; Steven T DeKosky Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Michelle T Fodero-Tavoletti; Kerryn E Pike; Roberto Cappai; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Seok Rye Choi; Geoff Golding; Zhiping Zhuang; Wei Zhang; Nathaniel Lim; Franz Hefti; Tyler E Benedum; Michael R Kilbourn; Daniel Skovronsky; Hank F Kung Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057