OBJECTIVE: To evaluate associations of [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B (PIB) and [(18)F]FDDNP with impairment in specific cognitive domains over the broader spectrum comprising cognitively normal elderly subjects, patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: Twelve patients with AD, 13 patients with MCI, and 15 cognitively normal elderly subjects were included. Paired [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP PET scans were performed in all subjects. Binding potential (BP(ND)) was calculated using parametric images of BP(ND) for global, frontal, parietal, and temporal cortex; medial temporal lobe; and posterior cingulate. Cognitive functions were assessed using a battery of neuropsychological tests. Linear regression analyses were used to assess associations of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP binding with cognitive measures. RESULTS: Adjusted for age, sex, and [(18)F]FDDNP binding, higher global [(11)C]PIB binding was associated with lower scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination, immediate and delayed recall of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task (RAVLT), Visual Association Task, and Trail Making Test part B. Conversely, higher [(18)F]FDDNP binding was independently associated with lower scores on immediate recall of the RAVLT. After additional adjustment for diagnosis, higher [(11)C]PIB binding remained independently associated with delayed recall (standardized beta = -0.39, p = 0.01), whereas higher [(18)F]FDDNP binding remained independently associated with immediate recall (standardized beta = -0.32, p = 0.03). When regional binding was assessed using stepwise models, both increased frontal [(11)C]PIB and temporal [(18)F]FDDNP binding were associated with memory, whereas increased parietal [(11)C]PIB binding was associated with nonmemory functions. CONCLUSION: Increased [(18)F]FDDNP binding is specifically associated with impairment of episodic memory, whereas increased [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B binding is associated with impairment in a broader range of cognitive functions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate associations of [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B (PIB) and [(18)F]FDDNP with impairment in specific cognitive domains over the broader spectrum comprising cognitively normal elderly subjects, patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: Twelve patients with AD, 13 patients with MCI, and 15 cognitively normal elderly subjects were included. Paired [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP PET scans were performed in all subjects. Binding potential (BP(ND)) was calculated using parametric images of BP(ND) for global, frontal, parietal, and temporal cortex; medial temporal lobe; and posterior cingulate. Cognitive functions were assessed using a battery of neuropsychological tests. Linear regression analyses were used to assess associations of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP binding with cognitive measures. RESULTS: Adjusted for age, sex, and [(18)F]FDDNP binding, higher global [(11)C]PIB binding was associated with lower scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination, immediate and delayed recall of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task (RAVLT), Visual Association Task, and Trail Making Test part B. Conversely, higher [(18)F]FDDNP binding was independently associated with lower scores on immediate recall of the RAVLT. After additional adjustment for diagnosis, higher [(11)C]PIB binding remained independently associated with delayed recall (standardized beta = -0.39, p = 0.01), whereas higher [(18)F]FDDNP binding remained independently associated with immediate recall (standardized beta = -0.32, p = 0.03). When regional binding was assessed using stepwise models, both increased frontal [(11)C]PIB and temporal [(18)F]FDDNP binding were associated with memory, whereas increased parietal [(11)C]PIB binding was associated with nonmemory functions. CONCLUSION: Increased [(18)F]FDDNP binding is specifically associated with impairment of episodic memory, whereas increased [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B binding is associated with impairment in a broader range of cognitive functions.
Authors: Liana G Apostolova; Kristy S Hwang; John P Andrawis; Amity E Green; Sona Babakchanian; Jonathan H Morra; Jeffrey L Cummings; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Paul S Aisen; William J Jagust; Robert A Koeppe; Chester A Mathis; Michael W Weiner; Paul M Thompson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Noble George; Emily G Gean; Ayon Nandi; Boris Frolov; Eram Zaidi; Ho Lee; James R Brašić; Dean F Wong Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Nelleke Tolboom; Jessica C Foster-Dingley; Sofie F Adriaanse; Ronald Boellaard; Maqsood Yaqub; Albert D Windhorst; Frederik Barkhof; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Diego Iacono; Susan M Resnick; Richard O'Brien; Alan B Zonderman; Yang An; Olga Pletnikova; Gay Rudow; Barbara Crain; Juan C Troncoso Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Gary W Small; Prabha Siddarth; Vladimir Kepe; Linda M Ercoli; Alison C Burggren; Susan Y Bookheimer; Karen J Miller; Jeanne Kim; Helen Lavretsky; S-C Huang; Jorge R Barrio Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2012-02
Authors: Valerie A Cardenas; Duygu Tosun; Linda L Chao; P Thomas Fletcher; Sarang Joshi; Michael W Weiner; Norbert Schuff Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Elliott J Mufson; Milos D Ikonomovic; Scott E Counts; Sylvia E Perez; Michael Malek-Ahmadi; Stephen W Scheff; Stephen D Ginsberg Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 3.332