OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contributions of amyloid-positive (Am+) and medial temporal atrophy-positive (MTA+) scans to the diagnostic classification of prodromal and probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: (18)F-flutemetamol-labeled amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used to classify 10 young normal, 15 elderly normal, 20 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 27 AD subjects. MTA+ status was determined using a cut point derived from a previous study, and Am+ status was determined using a conservative and liberal cut point. RESULTS: The rates of MRI scans with positive results among young normal, elderly normal, aMCI, and AD subjects were 0%, 20%, 75%, and 82%, respectively. Using conservative cut points, the rates of Am+ scans for these same groups of subjects were 0%, 7%, 50%, and 93%, respectively, with the aMCI group showing the largest discrepancy between Am+ and MTA+ scans. Among aMCI cases, 80% of Am+ subjects were also MTA+, and 70% of amyloid-negative (Am-) subjects were MTA+. The combination of amyloid PET and MTA data was additive, with an overall correct classification rate for aMCI of 86%, when a liberal cut point (standard uptake value ratio = 1.4) was used for amyloid positivity. INTERPRETATION: (18)F-flutemetamol PET and structural MRI provided additive information in the diagnostic classification of aMCI subjects, suggesting an amyloid-independent neurodegenerative component among aMCI subjects in this sample.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contributions of amyloid-positive (Am+) and medial temporal atrophy-positive (MTA+) scans to the diagnostic classification of prodromal and probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: (18)F-flutemetamol-labeled amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used to classify 10 young normal, 15 elderly normal, 20 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 27 AD subjects. MTA+ status was determined using a cut point derived from a previous study, and Am+ status was determined using a conservative and liberal cut point. RESULTS: The rates of MRI scans with positive results among young normal, elderly normal, aMCI, and AD subjects were 0%, 20%, 75%, and 82%, respectively. Using conservative cut points, the rates of Am+ scans for these same groups of subjects were 0%, 7%, 50%, and 93%, respectively, with the aMCI group showing the largest discrepancy between Am+ and MTA+ scans. Among aMCI cases, 80% of Am+ subjects were also MTA+, and 70% of amyloid-negative (Am-) subjects were MTA+. The combination of amyloid PET and MTA data was additive, with an overall correct classification rate for aMCI of 86%, when a liberal cut point (standard uptake value ratio = 1.4) was used for amyloid positivity. INTERPRETATION: (18)F-flutemetamol PET and structural MRI provided additive information in the diagnostic classification of aMCI subjects, suggesting an amyloid-independent neurodegenerative component among aMCI subjects in this sample.
Authors: E C Mormino; J T Kluth; C M Madison; G D Rabinovici; S L Baker; B L Miller; R A Koeppe; C A Mathis; M W Weiner; W J Jagust Journal: Brain Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Gaël Chételat; Victor L Villemagne; Kerryn E Pike; Kathryn A Ellis; Pierrick Bourgeat; Gareth Jones; Graeme J O'Keefe; Olivier Salvado; Cassandra Szoeke; Ralph N Martins; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Brain Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 13.501
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: C D Smith; H Chebrolu; D R Wekstein; F A Schmitt; G A Jicha; G Cooper; W R Markesbery Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-04-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ranjan Duara; David A Loewenstein; Maria Greig; Amarilis Acevedo; Elizabeth Potter; Jason Appel; Ashok Raj; John Schinka; Elizabeth Schofield; Warren Barker; Yougui Wu; Huntington Potter Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Leslie M Shaw; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; Ronald C Petersen; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 44.182
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: Laura E M Wisse; Nirali Butala; Sandhitsu R Das; Christos Davatzikos; Bradford C Dickerson; Sanjeev N Vaishnavi; Paul A Yushkevich; David A Wolk Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Gaël Chételat; Dennis Dickson; Anne M Fagan; Giovanni B Frisoni; William Jagust; Elizabeth C Mormino; Ronald C Petersen; Reisa A Sperling; Wiesje M van der Flier; Victor L Villemagne; Pieter J Visser; Stephanie J B Vos Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Dustin B Hammers; Taylor J Atkinson; Bonnie C A Dalley; Kayla R Suhrie; Kevin P Horn; Kelli M Rasmussen; Britney E Beardmore; Lance D Burrell; Kevin Duff; John M Hoffman Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: Leslie S Gaynor; Rosie E Curiel Cid; Ailyn Penate; Mónica Rosselli; Sara N Burke; Meredith Wicklund; David A Loewenstein; Russell M Bauer Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: David A Loewenstein; Rosie E Curiel; Maria T Greig; Russell M Bauer; Marian Rosado; Dawn Bowers; Meredith Wicklund; Elizabeth Crocco; Michael Pontecorvo; Abhinay D Joshi; Rosemarie Rodriguez; Warren W Barker; Jacqueline Hidalgo; Ranjan Duara Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 4.105