PURPOSE: Amyloid imaging with (18)F-labelled radiotracers will allow widespread use of this technique, facilitating research, diagnosis and therapeutic development for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The purpose of this analysis was to compare data on cortical Aβ deposition in subjects who had undergone both (11)C-PiB (PiB) and (18)F-florbetaben (FBB) PET imaging. METHODS: We identified ten healthy elderly controls (HC) and ten patients with AD who had undergone PET imaging after intravenous injection of 370 MBq of PiB and 300 MBq of FBB under separate research protocols. PiB and FBB images were coregistered so that placement of regions of interest was identical on both scans and standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using the cerebellar cortex as reference region were calculated between 40 and 70 min and between 90 and 110 min after injection for PiB and FBB, respectively. RESULTS: Significantly higher SUVR values (p < 0.0001) in most cortical areas were observed in AD patients when compared with HC with both radiotracers. Global SUVR values in AD patients were on average 75% higher than in HC with PiB and 56% higher with FBB. There was an excellent linear correlation between PiB and FBB global SUVR values (r = 0.97, p < 0.0001) with similar effect sizes for distinguishing AD from HC subjects for both radiotracers (Cohen's d 3.3 for PiB and 3.0 for FBB). CONCLUSION: FBB, while having a narrower dynamic range than PiB, clearly distinguished HC from AD patients, with a comparable effect size. FBB seems a suitable (18)F radiotracer for imaging AD pathology in vivo.
PURPOSE: Amyloid imaging with (18)F-labelled radiotracers will allow widespread use of this technique, facilitating research, diagnosis and therapeutic development for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The purpose of this analysis was to compare data on cortical Aβ deposition in subjects who had undergone both (11)C-PiB (PiB) and (18)F-florbetaben (FBB) PET imaging. METHODS: We identified ten healthy elderly controls (HC) and ten patients with AD who had undergone PET imaging after intravenous injection of 370 MBq of PiB and 300 MBq of FBB under separate research protocols. PiB and FBB images were coregistered so that placement of regions of interest was identical on both scans and standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using the cerebellar cortex as reference region were calculated between 40 and 70 min and between 90 and 110 min after injection for PiB and FBB, respectively. RESULTS: Significantly higher SUVR values (p < 0.0001) in most cortical areas were observed in ADpatients when compared with HC with both radiotracers. Global SUVR values in ADpatients were on average 75% higher than in HC with PiB and 56% higher with FBB. There was an excellent linear correlation between PiB and FBB global SUVR values (r = 0.97, p < 0.0001) with similar effect sizes for distinguishing AD from HC subjects for both radiotracers (Cohen's d 3.3 for PiB and 3.0 for FBB). CONCLUSION: FBB, while having a narrower dynamic range than PiB, clearly distinguished HC from ADpatients, with a comparable effect size. FBB seems a suitable (18)F radiotracer for imaging AD pathology in vivo.
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Kerryn E Pike; Gaël Chételat; Kathryn A Ellis; Rachel S Mulligan; Pierrick Bourgeat; Uwe Ackermann; Gareth Jones; Cassandra Szoeke; Olivier Salvado; Ralph Martins; Graeme O'Keefe; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Anders Juréus; Britt-Marie Swahn; Johan Sandell; Fredrik Jeppsson; Allan E Johnson; Peter Johnström; Jan A M Neelissen; Dan Sunnemark; Lars Farde; Samuel P S Svensson Journal: J Neurochem Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 5.372
Authors: Rik Vandenberghe; Koen Van Laere; Adrian Ivanoiu; Eric Salmon; Christine Bastin; Eric Triau; Steen Hasselbalch; Ian Law; Allan Andersen; Alex Korner; Lennart Minthon; Gaëtan Garraux; Natalie Nelissen; Guy Bormans; Chris Buckley; Rikard Owenius; Lennart Thurfjell; Gill Farrar; David J Brooks Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: S M Resnick; J Sojkova; Y Zhou; Y An; W Ye; D P Holt; R F Dannals; C A Mathis; W E Klunk; L Ferrucci; M A Kraut; D F Wong Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ville Leinonen; Irina Alafuzoff; Sargo Aalto; Timo Suotunen; Sakari Savolainen; Kjell Någren; Tero Tapiola; Tuula Pirttilä; Jaakko Rinne; Juha E Jääskeläinen; Hilkka Soininen; Juha O Rinne Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-08-11
Authors: Kerryn E Pike; Greg Savage; Victor L Villemagne; Steven Ng; Simon A Moss; Paul Maruff; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Brain Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Howard Jay Aizenstein; Robert D Nebes; Judith A Saxton; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Scott K Ziolko; Jeffrey A James; Beth E Snitz; Patricia R Houck; Wenzhu Bi; Ann D Cohen; Brian J Lopresti; Steven T DeKosky; Edythe M Halligan; William E Klunk Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-11
Authors: Yat-Fung Shea; Warren Barker; Maria T Greig-Gusto; David A Loewenstein; Ranjan Duara; Steven T DeKosky Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Yat-Fung Shea; Warren Barker; Maria T Greig-Gusto; David A Loewenstein; Steven T DeKosky; Ranjan Duara Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Susan M Landau; Christopher Breault; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael Pontecorvo; Chester A Mathis; William J Jagust; Mark A Mintun Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dana L Tudorascu; Stewart J Anderson; Davneet S Minhas; Zheming Yu; Diane Comer; Patrick Lao; Sigan Hartley; Charles M Laymon; Beth E Snitz; Brian J Lopresti; Sterling Johnson; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; Howard J Aizenstein; William E Klunk; Benjamin L Handen; Brad T Christian; Ann D Cohen Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 4.673