PURPOSE: The aim was to identify the amyloid beta (Aβ) deposition by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with the (18)F-labeled Pittsburgh compound B (PIB) derivative [(18)F]flutemetamol (FMM) across a spectrum of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to compare Aβ deposition between [(18)F]FMM and [(11)C]PIB PET imaging. METHODS: The study included 36 patients with AD, 68 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 41 older healthy controls (HC) (aged ≥56), 11 young HC (aged ≤45), and 10 transitional HC (aged 46-55). All 166 subjects underwent 30-min static [(18)F]FMM PET 85 min after injection, 60-min dynamic [(11)C]PIB PET, and cognitive testing. [(18)F]FMM scans were assessed visually, and standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) were defined quantitatively in regions of interest identified on coregistered MRI (cerebellar cortex as a reference region). The PIB distribution volume ratios (DVR) were determined in the same regions. RESULTS: Of 36 AD patients, 35 had positive scans, while 36 of 41 older HC subjects had negative scans. [(18)F]FMM scans had a sensitivity of 97.2% and specificity of 85.3% in distinguishing AD patients from older HC subjects, and a specificity of 100% for young and transitional HC subjects. The [(11)C]PIB scan had the same results. Interreader agreement was excellent (kappa score = 0.81). The cortical FMM SUVR in AD patients was significantly greater than in older HC subjects (1.76 ± 0.23 vs 1.30 ± 0.26, p < 0.01). Of the MCI patients, 68 had a bimodal distribution of SUVR, and 29 of them (42.6%) had positive scans. Cortical FMM SUVR values were strongly correlated with PIB DVR (r = 0.94, n = 145, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: [(18)F]FMM PET imaging detects Aβ deposition in patients along the continuum from normal cognitive status to dementia of AD and discriminates AD patients from HC subjects, similar to [(11)C]PIB PET.
PURPOSE: The aim was to identify the amyloid beta (Aβ) deposition by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with the (18)F-labeled Pittsburgh compound B (PIB) derivative [(18)F]flutemetamol (FMM) across a spectrum of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to compare Aβ deposition between [(18)F]FMM and [(11)C]PIB PET imaging. METHODS: The study included 36 patients with AD, 68 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 41 older healthy controls (HC) (aged ≥56), 11 young HC (aged ≤45), and 10 transitional HC (aged 46-55). All 166 subjects underwent 30-min static [(18)F]FMM PET 85 min after injection, 60-min dynamic [(11)C]PIB PET, and cognitive testing. [(18)F]FMM scans were assessed visually, and standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) were defined quantitatively in regions of interest identified on coregistered MRI (cerebellar cortex as a reference region). The PIB distribution volume ratios (DVR) were determined in the same regions. RESULTS: Of 36 ADpatients, 35 had positive scans, while 36 of 41 older HC subjects had negative scans. [(18)F]FMM scans had a sensitivity of 97.2% and specificity of 85.3% in distinguishing ADpatients from older HC subjects, and a specificity of 100% for young and transitional HC subjects. The [(11)C]PIB scan had the same results. Interreader agreement was excellent (kappa score = 0.81). The cortical FMM SUVR in ADpatients was significantly greater than in older HC subjects (1.76 ± 0.23 vs 1.30 ± 0.26, p < 0.01). Of the MCI patients, 68 had a bimodal distribution of SUVR, and 29 of them (42.6%) had positive scans. Cortical FMM SUVR values were strongly correlated with PIB DVR (r = 0.94, n = 145, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: [(18)F]FMM PET imaging detects Aβ deposition in patients along the continuum from normal cognitive status to dementia of AD and discriminates ADpatients from HC subjects, similar to [(11)C]PIB PET.
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Marilyn S Albert; David S Knopman; Guy M McKhann; Reisa A Sperling; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
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: Victor L Villemagne; Rachel S Mulligan; Svetlana Pejoska; Kevin Ong; Gareth Jones; Graeme O'Keefe; J Gordon Chan; Kenneth Young; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Natalie Nelissen; Koen Van Laere; Lennart Thurfjell; Rikard Owenius; Mathieu Vandenbulcke; Michel Koole; Guy Bormans; David J Brooks; Rik Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Wai Lam Yip; Sverre Arne Sande; David Grace; Dirk Jan in't Veld; Per Christian Sontum; Tina Solvang; Knut Dyrstad Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Maria V Fawaz; Allen F Brooks; Melissa E Rodnick; Garrett M Carpenter; Xia Shao; Timothy J Desmond; Phillip Sherman; Carole A Quesada; Brian G Hockley; Michael R Kilbourn; Roger L Albin; Kirk A Frey; Peter J H Scott Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 4.418