BACKGROUND: With the potential emergence of disease specific therapies, an accurate biomarker of Alzheimer's Disease pathology is needed in cases in which the underlying etiology is uncertain. We explored the potential value of amyloid imaging in patients with atypical presentations of dementia. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with atypical dementia underwent positron emission tomography imaging with the amyloid imaging tracer Pittsburgh compound B (PiB). Twenty-six had [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography scans. After extensive clinical evaluation, this group of patients generated considerable diagnostic uncertainty and received working diagnoses that included possible Alzheimer's disease (AD), focal dementias (e.g., posterior cortical atrophy [PCA]), or cases in which no clear diagnostic category could be determined (dementia of uncertain etiology). Patients were classified as PiB-positive, PiB-negative, or PiB-intermediate, based on objective criteria. Anterior-posterior and left-right indices of PiB and [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake were calculated to examine differences in distribution of amyloid pathology and metabolic changes associated with clinical phenotype. RESULTS: Eleven patients (39%) were PiB positive, 16 were PiB negative (57%), and one (4%) was PiB intermediate. By diagnostic category, three of 10 patients (30%) with dementia of uncertain etiology, one of five (20%) with primary progressive aphasia, three of five (60%) with PCA, and four of seven (57%) with possible AD were PiB positive. Brain metabolism of both PiB-positive and PiB-negative patients was generally similar by phenotype, but appeared to differ from typical AD. PCA patients also appeared to differ in their relative distribution of PiB compared with typical AD, consistent with their atypical phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: AD pathology is frequently present in atypical presentations of dementia and can be identified by amyloid imaging. Clinical phenotype is more related to the pattern of cerebral hypometabolism than the presence/absence of amyloid pathology. These findings have diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications.
BACKGROUND: With the potential emergence of disease specific therapies, an accurate biomarker of Alzheimer's Disease pathology is needed in cases in which the underlying etiology is uncertain. We explored the potential value of amyloid imaging in patients with atypical presentations of dementia. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with atypical dementia underwent positron emission tomography imaging with the amyloid imaging tracer Pittsburgh compound B (PiB). Twenty-six had [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography scans. After extensive clinical evaluation, this group of patients generated considerable diagnostic uncertainty and received working diagnoses that included possible Alzheimer's disease (AD), focal dementias (e.g., posterior cortical atrophy [PCA]), or cases in which no clear diagnostic category could be determined (dementia of uncertain etiology). Patients were classified as PiB-positive, PiB-negative, or PiB-intermediate, based on objective criteria. Anterior-posterior and left-right indices of PiB and [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake were calculated to examine differences in distribution of amyloid pathology and metabolic changes associated with clinical phenotype. RESULTS: Eleven patients (39%) were PiB positive, 16 were PiB negative (57%), and one (4%) was PiB intermediate. By diagnostic category, three of 10 patients (30%) with dementia of uncertain etiology, one of five (20%) with primary progressive aphasia, three of five (60%) with PCA, and four of seven (57%) with possible AD were PiB positive. Brain metabolism of both PiB-positive and PiB-negative patients was generally similar by phenotype, but appeared to differ from typical AD. PCA patients also appeared to differ in their relative distribution of PiB compared with typical AD, consistent with their atypical phenotype. CONCLUSIONS:AD pathology is frequently present in atypical presentations of dementia and can be identified by amyloid imaging. Clinical phenotype is more related to the pattern of cerebral hypometabolism than the presence/absence of amyloid pathology. These findings have diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications.
Authors: O L Lopez; J T Becker; W Klunk; J Saxton; R L Hamilton; D I Kaufer; R A Sweet; C Cidis Meltzer; S Wisniewski; M I Kamboh; S T DeKosky Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-12-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: C C Meltzer; P E Kinahan; P J Greer; T E Nichols; C Comtat; M N Cantwell; M P Lin; J C Price Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: William J Jagust; Dan Bandy; Kewei Chen; Norman L Foster; Susan M Landau; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Eric M Reiman; Daniel Skovronsky; Robert A Koeppe Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: M Bobinski; J Wegiel; H M Wisniewski; M Tarnawski; M Bobinski; B Reisberg; M J De Leon; D C Miller Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 1996 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Karen Koopman; Nathalie Le Bastard; Jean-Jacques Martin; Guy Nagels; Peter P De Deyn; Sebastiaan Engelborghs Journal: Neurochem Int Date: 2009-03-05 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Milos D Ikonomovic; William E Klunk; Eric E Abrahamson; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Brian J Lopresti; Scott Ziolko; Wenzhu Bi; William R Paljug; Manik L Debnath; Caroline E Hope; Barbara A Isanski; Ronald L Hamilton; Steven T DeKosky Journal: Brain Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Brian J Lopresti; Elizabeth M Campbell; Zheming Yu; Stewart J Anderson; Ann D Cohen; Davneet S Minhas; Beth E Snitz; Sarah K Royse; Carl R Becker; Howard J Aizenstein; Chester A Mathis; Oscar L Lopez; William E Klunk; Dana L Tudorascu Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Chenjie Xia; Sara J Makaretz; Christina Caso; Scott McGinnis; Stephen N Gomperts; Jorge Sepulcre; Teresa Gomez-Isla; Bradley T Hyman; Aaron Schultz; Neil Vasdev; Keith A Johnson; Bradford C Dickerson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Dorene M Rentz; Elizabeth C Mormino; Kathryn V Papp; Rebecca A Betensky; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Michael W Weiner; Paul S Aisen; Leslie M Shaw; Prashanthi Vemuri; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Timothy G Lesnick; Vernon S Pankratz; Michael C Donohue; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Vincent Doré; Samantha C Burnham; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Daniel R Schonhaut; Michael Schöll; Samuel N Lockhart; Nagehan Ayakta; Suzanne L Baker; James P O'Neil; Mustafa Janabi; Andreas Lazaris; Averill Cantwell; Jacob Vogel; Miguel Santos; Zachary A Miller; Brianne M Bettcher; Keith A Vossel; Joel H Kramer; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Brain Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Daniel R Schonhaut; Suzanne L Baker; James P O'Neil; Mustafa Janabi; Pia M Ghosh; Miguel Santos; Zachary A Miller; Brianne M Bettcher; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Matthias Brendel; Jonas Schnabel; Sonja Schönecker; Leonie Wagner; Eva Brendel; Johanna Meyer-Wilmes; Marcus Unterrainer; Andreas Schildan; Marianne Patt; Catharina Prix; Nibal Ackl; Cihan Catak; Oliver Pogarell; Johannes Levin; Adrian Danek; Katharina Buerger; Peter Bartenstein; Henryk Barthel; Osama Sabri; Axel Rominger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 9.236