Y Yuan1, Z-X Gu, W-S Wei. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Huadong Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at risk for developing Alzheimer disease (AD). To diagnose AD at an early stage, one must develop highly specific and sensitive tools to identify it among at-risk subjects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the ability of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET), single-photon emission tomography (SPECT), and structural MR imaging to predict conversion to AD in patients with MCI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant studies were identified with MEDLINE from January 1990 to April 2008. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were done on the diagnostic performance data for each technique from eligible studies. We estimated and compared the weighted summary sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios (LRs), and summary receiver operating characteristic curves of each imaging technique. RESULTS: Twenty-four eligible studies were included, with a total of 1112 patients. FDG-PET performed statistically better in LR+ and odds ratio (OR), whereas no statistical difference was found in pooled sensitivity, specificity, and LR- for each technique. No statistical difference was confirmed between SPECT and MR imaging. The Q* index estimates for FDG-PET, SPECT, and structural MR imaging were respectively 0.86, 0.75, and 0.76. In meta-regression, statistical significance was found only between technique and log OR, with a regression coefficient of -0.575. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that FDG-PET performs slightly better than SPECT and structural MR imaging in the prediction of conversion to AD in patients with MCI; parallel performance was found between SPECT and MR imaging.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at risk for developing Alzheimer disease (AD). To diagnose AD at an early stage, one must develop highly specific and sensitive tools to identify it among at-risk subjects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the ability of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET), single-photon emission tomography (SPECT), and structural MR imaging to predict conversion to AD in patients with MCI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant studies were identified with MEDLINE from January 1990 to April 2008. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were done on the diagnostic performance data for each technique from eligible studies. We estimated and compared the weighted summary sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios (LRs), and summary receiver operating characteristic curves of each imaging technique. RESULTS: Twenty-four eligible studies were included, with a total of 1112 patients. FDG-PET performed statistically better in LR+ and odds ratio (OR), whereas no statistical difference was found in pooled sensitivity, specificity, and LR- for each technique. No statistical difference was confirmed between SPECT and MR imaging. The Q* index estimates for FDG-PET, SPECT, and structural MR imaging were respectively 0.86, 0.75, and 0.76. In meta-regression, statistical significance was found only between technique and log OR, with a regression coefficient of -0.575. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that FDG-PET performs slightly better than SPECT and structural MR imaging in the prediction of conversion to AD in patients with MCI; parallel performance was found between SPECT and MR imaging.
Authors: Giovanni B Frisoni; Nick C Fox; Clifford R Jack; Philip Scheltens; Paul M Thompson Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Tammy T Hshieh; Weiying Dai; Michele Cavallari; Charles Rg Guttmann; Dominik S Meier; Eva M Schmitt; Bradford C Dickerson; Daniel Z Press; Edward R Marcantonio; Richard N Jones; Yun Ray Gou; Thomas G Travison; Tamara G Fong; Long Ngo; Sharon K Inouye; David C Alsop Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Rahul S Desikan; Howard J Cabral; Fabio Settecase; Christopher P Hess; William P Dillon; Christine M Glastonbury; Michael W Weiner; Nicholas J Schmansky; David H Salat; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Simon F Eskildsen; Pierrick Coupé; Daniel García-Lorenzo; Vladimir Fonov; Jens C Pruessner; D Louis Collins Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Leslie M Shaw; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; Ronald C Petersen; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Mohammad Haris; Erin McArdle; Matthew Fenty; Anup Singh; Christos Davatzikos; John Q Trojanowski; Elias R Melhem; Christopher M Clark; Arijitt Borthakur Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.813