OBJECTIVE: To evaluate visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP PET images as potential supportive diagnostic markers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Twenty-one AD patients and 20 controls were included. Parametric [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP global binding potential (BP(ND)) images were visually rated as 'AD' or 'normal.' Data were compared with ratings of [(18)F]FDG PET images and MRI-derived medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores. Inter-rater agreement and agreement with clinical diagnosis were assessed for all imaging modalities. In addition, cut-off values for quantitative global [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP BP(ND) were determined. Visual ratings were compared with dichotomised quantitative values. RESULTS: Agreement between readers was excellent for [(11)C]PIB, [(18)F]FDDNP and MTA (Cohen kappa kappa> or =0.85) and moderate for [(18)F]FDG (kappa=0.56). The highest sensitivity was found for [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDG (both 1.0). The highest specificity was found for MTA (0.90) and [(11)C]PIB (0.85). [(18)F]FDDNP had the lowest sensitivity and specificity (0.67 and 0.53, respectively). The cut-off for quantitative [(11)C]PIB BP(ND) was 0.54 (sensitivity and specificity both 0.95) and for [(18)F]FDDNP BP(ND) 0.07 (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.73). Agreement between quantitative analyses and visual ratings was excellent for [(11)C]PIB (kappa=0.85) and fair for [(18)F]FDDNP (kappa=0.40). CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB images was straightforward and accurate, showing promise as a supportive diagnostic marker for AD. Moreover, [(11)C]PIB showed the best combination of sensitivity and specificity. Visual assessment of [(18)F]FDDNP images was insufficient. The quantitative analysis of [(18)F]FDDNP data showed a considerably higher diagnostic value than the visual analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP PET images as potential supportive diagnostic markers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Twenty-one ADpatients and 20 controls were included. Parametric [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP global binding potential (BP(ND)) images were visually rated as 'AD' or 'normal.' Data were compared with ratings of [(18)F]FDG PET images and MRI-derived medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores. Inter-rater agreement and agreement with clinical diagnosis were assessed for all imaging modalities. In addition, cut-off values for quantitative global [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP BP(ND) were determined. Visual ratings were compared with dichotomised quantitative values. RESULTS: Agreement between readers was excellent for [(11)C]PIB, [(18)F]FDDNP and MTA (Cohen kappa kappa> or =0.85) and moderate for [(18)F]FDG (kappa=0.56). The highest sensitivity was found for [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDG (both 1.0). The highest specificity was found for MTA (0.90) and [(11)C]PIB (0.85). [(18)F]FDDNP had the lowest sensitivity and specificity (0.67 and 0.53, respectively). The cut-off for quantitative [(11)C]PIB BP(ND) was 0.54 (sensitivity and specificity both 0.95) and for [(18)F]FDDNP BP(ND) 0.07 (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.73). Agreement between quantitative analyses and visual ratings was excellent for [(11)C]PIB (kappa=0.85) and fair for [(18)F]FDDNP (kappa=0.40). CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB images was straightforward and accurate, showing promise as a supportive diagnostic marker for AD. Moreover, [(11)C]PIB showed the best combination of sensitivity and specificity. Visual assessment of [(18)F]FDDNP images was insufficient. The quantitative analysis of [(18)F]FDDNP data showed a considerably higher diagnostic value than the visual analysis.
Authors: Edmond Teng; Vladimir Kepe; Sally A Frautschy; Jie Liu; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Fusheng Yang; Ping-Ping Chen; Graham B Cole; Mychica R Jones; Sung-Cheng Huang; Dorothy G Flood; Stephen P Trusko; Gary W Small; Gregory M Cole; Jorge R Barrio Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 5.996
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: Sofie M Adriaanse; Ernesto J Sanz-Arigita; Maja A A Binnewijzend; Rik Ossenkoppele; Nelleke Tolboom; Daniëlle M E van Assema; Alle Meije Wink; Ronald Boellaard; Maqsood Yaqub; Albert D Windhorst; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Serge A R B Rombouts; Frederik Barkhof; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: T Yamane; Y Ikari; T Nishio; K Ishii; K Ishii; T Kato; K Ito; D H S Silverman; M Senda; T Asada; H Arai; M Sugishita; T Iwatsubo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Chester A Mathis; Lewis H Kuller; William E Klunk; Beth E Snitz; Julie C Price; Lisa A Weissfeld; Bedda L Rosario; Brian J Lopresti; Judith A Saxton; Howard J Aizenstein; Eric M McDade; M Ilyas Kamboh; Steven T DeKosky; Oscar L Lopez Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Ann D Cohen; Wenzhu Mowrey; Lisa A Weissfeld; Howard J Aizenstein; Eric McDade; James M Mountz; Robert D Nebes; Judith A Saxton; Beth Snitz; Steven Dekosky; Jeff Williamson; Oscar L Lopez; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 6.556