OBJECTIVE: To use principal component analyses (PCA) of Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) PET imaging to determine whether the pattern of in vivo β-amyloid (Aβ) in Parkinson disease (PD) with cognitive impairment is similar to the pattern found in symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: PiB PET scans were obtained from participants with PD with cognitive impairment (n = 53), participants with symptomatic AD (n = 35), and age-matched controls (n = 67). All were assessed using the Clinical Dementia Rating and APOE genotype was determined in 137 participants. PCA was used to (1) determine the PiB binding pattern in AD, (2) determine a possible unique PD pattern, and (3) directly compare the PiB binding patterns in PD and AD groups. RESULTS: The first 2 principal components (PC1 and PC2) significantly separated the AD and control participants (p < 0.001). Participants with PD with cognitive impairment also were significantly different from participants with symptomatic AD on both components (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference between PD and controls on either component. Even those participants with PD with elevated mean cortical binding potentials were significantly different from participants with AD on both components. CONCLUSION: Using PCA, we demonstrated that participants with PD with cognitive impairment do not exhibit the same PiB binding pattern as participants with AD. These data suggest that Aβ deposition may play a different pathophysiologic role in the cognitive impairment of PD compared to that in AD.
OBJECTIVE: To use principal component analyses (PCA) of Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) PET imaging to determine whether the pattern of in vivo β-amyloid (Aβ) in Parkinson disease (PD) with cognitive impairment is similar to the pattern found in symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: PiB PET scans were obtained from participants with PD with cognitive impairment (n = 53), participants with symptomatic AD (n = 35), and age-matched controls (n = 67). All were assessed using the Clinical Dementia Rating and APOE genotype was determined in 137 participants. PCA was used to (1) determine the PiB binding pattern in AD, (2) determine a possible unique PD pattern, and (3) directly compare the PiB binding patterns in PD and AD groups. RESULTS: The first 2 principal components (PC1 and PC2) significantly separated the AD and control participants (p < 0.001). Participants with PD with cognitive impairment also were significantly different from participants with symptomatic AD on both components (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference between PD and controls on either component. Even those participants with PD with elevated mean cortical binding potentials were significantly different from participants with AD on both components. CONCLUSION: Using PCA, we demonstrated that participants with PD with cognitive impairment do not exhibit the same PiB binding pattern as participants with AD. These data suggest that Aβ deposition may play a different pathophysiologic role in the cognitive impairment of PD compared to that in AD.
Authors: H I Hurtig; J Q Trojanowski; J Galvin; D Ewbank; M L Schmidt; V M Lee; C M Clark; G Glosser; M B Stern; S M Gollomp; S E Arnold Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-05-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: M A Mintun; G N Larossa; Y I Sheline; C S Dence; S Y Lee; R H Mach; W E Klunk; C A Mathis; S T DeKosky; J C Morris Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-08-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: S N Gomperts; D M Rentz; E Moran; J A Becker; J J Locascio; W E Klunk; C A Mathis; D R Elmaleh; T Shoup; A J Fischman; B T Hyman; J H Growdon; K A Johnson Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Chester A Mathis; Yanming Wang; Daniel P Holt; Guo-Feng Huang; Manik L Debnath; William E Klunk Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Yaroslau Compta; Laura Parkkinen; Sean S O'Sullivan; Jana Vandrovcova; Janice L Holton; Catherine Collins; Tammaryn Lashley; Constantinos Kallis; David R Williams; Rohan de Silva; Andrew J Lees; Tamas Revesz Journal: Brain Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Tammaryn Lashley; Janice L Holton; Emma Gray; Konrad Kirkham; Sean S O'Sullivan; Arlete Hilbig; Nicholas W Wood; Andrew J Lees; Tamas Revesz Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2008-01-08 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Meghan C Campbell; Jonathan M Koller; Abraham Z Snyder; Chandana Buddhala; Paul T Kotzbauer; Joel S Perlmutter Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jennifer G Goldman; Caroline Williams-Gray; Roger A Barker; John E Duda; James E Galvin Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Sarah E Monsell; Lilah M Besser; Katherine B Heller; Harvey Checkoway; Irene Litvan; Walter A Kukull Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 4.891