UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of glucose metabolism and amyloid deposition as demonstrated by (18)F-FDG and Pittsburg Compound B (PiB) PET to evaluate subjects with cognitive impairment. METHODS: Subjects were selected from existing participants in the Mayo Alzheimer's Disease Research Center or Alzheimer's Disease Patient Registry programs. A total of 20 healthy controls and 17 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), 6 nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), and 13 Alzheimer disease (AD) subjects were imaged with both PiB and (18)F-FDG PET between March 2006 and August 2007. Global measures for PiB and (18)F-FDG PET uptake, normalized to cerebellum for PiB and pons for (18)F-FDG, were compared. Partial-volume correction, standardized uptake value (SUV), and cortical ratio methods of image analysis were also evaluated in an attempt to optimize the analysis for each test. RESULTS: Significant discrimination (P < 0.05) between controls and AD, naMCI and aMCI, naMCI and AD, and aMCI and AD by PiB PET measurements was observed. The paired groupwise comparisons of the global measures demonstrated that PiB PET versus (18)F-FDG PET showed similar significant group separation, with only PiB showing significant separation of naMCI and aMCI subjects. CONCLUSION: PiB PET and (18)F-FDG PET have similar diagnostic accuracy in early cognitive impairment. However, significantly better group discrimination in naMCI and aMCI subjects by PiB, compared with (18)F-FDG, was seen and may suggest early amyloid deposition before cerebral metabolic disruption in this group.
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of glucose metabolism and amyloid deposition as demonstrated by (18)F-FDG and Pittsburg Compound B (PiB) PET to evaluate subjects with cognitive impairment. METHODS: Subjects were selected from existing participants in the MayoAlzheimer's Disease Research Center or Alzheimer's DiseasePatient Registry programs. A total of 20 healthy controls and 17 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), 6 nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), and 13 Alzheimer disease (AD) subjects were imaged with both PiB and (18)F-FDG PET between March 2006 and August 2007. Global measures for PiB and (18)F-FDG PET uptake, normalized to cerebellum for PiB and pons for (18)F-FDG, were compared. Partial-volume correction, standardized uptake value (SUV), and cortical ratio methods of image analysis were also evaluated in an attempt to optimize the analysis for each test. RESULTS: Significant discrimination (P < 0.05) between controls and AD, naMCI and aMCI, naMCI and AD, and aMCI and AD by PiB PET measurements was observed. The paired groupwise comparisons of the global measures demonstrated that PiB PET versus (18)F-FDG PET showed similar significant group separation, with only PiB showing significant separation of naMCI and aMCI subjects. CONCLUSION:PiB PET and (18)F-FDG PET have similar diagnostic accuracy in early cognitive impairment. However, significantly better group discrimination in naMCI and aMCI subjects by PiB, compared with (18)F-FDG, was seen and may suggest early amyloid deposition before cerebral metabolic disruption in this group.
Authors: Alexander Drzezga; Timo Grimmer; Matthias Riemenschneider; Nicola Lautenschlager; Hartwig Siebner; Panagiotis Alexopoulus; Satoshi Minoshima; Markus Schwaiger; Alexander Kurz Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J A Lucas; R J Ivnik; G E Smith; D L Bohac; E G Tangalos; N R Graff-Radford; R C Petersen Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: L Mosconi; W-H Tsui; S De Santi; J Li; H Rusinek; A Convit; Y Li; Madhu Boppana; M J de Leon Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-06-14 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Mark H Tuszynski; Leon Thal; Mary Pay; David P Salmon; Hoi Sang U; Roy Bakay; Piyush Patel; Armin Blesch; H Lee Vahlsing; Gilbert Ho; Gang Tong; Steven G Potkin; James Fallon; Lawrence Hansen; Elliott J Mufson; Jeffrey H Kordower; Christine Gall; James Conner Journal: Nat Med Date: 2005-04-24 Impact factor: 53.440
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: Clifford R Jack; Prashanthi Vemuri; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Timothy G Lesnick; Val Lowe; Kejal Kantarci; Matt A Bernstein; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Bradley F Boeve; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; Ronald C Petersen; David S Knopman Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2012-07
Authors: D P Devanand; Arthur Mikhno; Gregory H Pelton; Katrina Cuasay; Gnanavalli Pradhaban; J S Dileep Kumar; Neil Upton; Robert Lai; Roger N Gunn; V Libri; Xinhua Liu; Ronald van Heertum; J John Mann; Ramin V Parsey Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Jeffrey L Dage; Alexandra M V Wennberg; David C Airey; Clinton E Hagen; David S Knopman; Mary M Machulda; Rosebud O Roberts; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Claudia Jacova; Lesly A Pearce; Raymond Costello; Leslie A McClure; Stephen L Holliday; Robert G Hart; Oscar R Benavente Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Yi Su; Tyler M Blazey; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Daniel S Marcus; Beau M Ances; Randall J Bateman; Nigel J Cairns; Patricia Aldea; Lisa Cash; Jon J Christensen; Karl Friedrichsen; Russ C Hornbeck; Angela M Farrar; Christopher J Owen; Richard Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; William Klunk; Julie C Price; Paul M Thompson; Bernadino Ghetti; Andrew J Saykin; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Peter R Schofield; Virginia Buckles; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 6.556