OBJECTIVES: To identify the optimal time window for capturing perfusion information from early (11)C-PIB imaging frames (perfusion PIB, (11)C-pPIB) and to compare the performance of (18)F-FDG PET and "dual biomarker" (11)C-PIB PET [(11)C-pPIB and amyloid PIB ((11)C-aPIB)] for classification of AD, MCI and CN subjects. METHODS: Forty subjects (14 CN, 12 MCI and 14 AD patients) underwent (18)F-FDG and (11)C-PIB PET studies. Pearson correlation between the (18)F-FDG image and sum of early (11)C-PIB frames was maximised to identify the optimal time window for (11)C-pPIB. The classification power of imaging parameters was evaluated with a leave-one-out validation. RESULTS: A 7-min time window yielded the highest correlation between (18)F-FDG and (11)C-pPIB. (11)C-pPIB and (18)F-FDG images shared a similar radioactive distribution pattern. (18)F-FDG performed better than (11)C-pPIB for the classification of both AD vs. CN and MCI vs. CN. (11)C-pPIB + (11)C-aPIB and (18)F-FDG + (11)C-aPIB yielded the highest classification accuracy for the classification of AD vs. CN, and (18)F-FDG + (11)C-aPIB had the best classification performance for the classification of MCI vs. CN CONCLUSION: C-pPIB could serve as a useful biomarker of rCBF for measuring neural activity and improve the diagnostic power of PET for AD in conjunction with (11)C-aPIB. (18)F-FDG and (11)C-PIB dual-tracer PET examination could better detect MCI. KEY POINTS: • Dual-tracer PET examination provides neurofunctional and neuropathological information for AD diagnosis. • The identified optimal 11C-pPIB time frames had highest correlation with 18F-FDG. • 11C-pPIB images shared a similar radioactive distribution pattern with 18F-FDG images. • 11C-pPIB can provide neurofunctional information. • Dual-tracer PET examination could better detect MCI.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the optimal time window for capturing perfusion information from early (11)C-PIB imaging frames (perfusion PIB, (11)C-pPIB) and to compare the performance of (18)F-FDG PET and "dual biomarker" (11)C-PIB PET [(11)C-pPIB and amyloid PIB ((11)C-aPIB)] for classification of AD, MCI and CN subjects. METHODS: Forty subjects (14 CN, 12 MCI and 14 ADpatients) underwent (18)F-FDG and (11)C-PIB PET studies. Pearson correlation between the (18)F-FDG image and sum of early (11)C-PIB frames was maximised to identify the optimal time window for (11)C-pPIB. The classification power of imaging parameters was evaluated with a leave-one-out validation. RESULTS: A 7-min time window yielded the highest correlation between (18)F-FDG and (11)C-pPIB. (11)C-pPIB and (18)F-FDG images shared a similar radioactive distribution pattern. (18)F-FDG performed better than (11)C-pPIB for the classification of both AD vs. CN and MCI vs. CN. (11)C-pPIB + (11)C-aPIB and (18)F-FDG + (11)C-aPIB yielded the highest classification accuracy for the classification of AD vs. CN, and (18)F-FDG + (11)C-aPIB had the best classification performance for the classification of MCI vs. CN CONCLUSION:C-pPIB could serve as a useful biomarker of rCBF for measuring neural activity and improve the diagnostic power of PET for AD in conjunction with (11)C-aPIB. (18)F-FDG and (11)C-PIB dual-tracer PET examination could better detect MCI. KEY POINTS: • Dual-tracer PET examination provides neurofunctional and neuropathological information for AD diagnosis. • The identified optimal 11C-pPIB time frames had highest correlation with 18F-FDG. • 11C-pPIB images shared a similar radioactive distribution pattern with 18F-FDG images. • 11C-pPIB can provide neurofunctional information. • Dual-tracer PET examination could better detect MCI.
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: Brian J Lopresti; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Jessica A Hoge; Scott K Ziolko; Xueling Lu; Carolyn C Meltzer; Kurt Schimmel; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Steven T DeKosky; Julie C Price Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
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: B Desgranges; J C Baron; V de la Sayette; M C Petit-Taboué; K Benali; B Landeau; B Lechevalier; F Eustache Journal: Brain Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Henry Engler; Anton Forsberg; Ove Almkvist; Gunnar Blomquist; Emma Larsson; Irina Savitcheva; Anders Wall; Anna Ringheim; Bengt Långström; Agneta Nordberg Journal: Brain Date: 2006-07-19 Impact factor: 13.501
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: Murat Bilgel; Lori Beason-Held; Yang An; Yun Zhou; Dean F Wong; Susan M Resnick Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Nelly Joseph-Mathurin; Yi Su; Tyler M Blazey; Mateusz Jasielec; Andrei Vlassenko; Karl Friedrichsen; Brian A Gordon; Russ C Hornbeck; Lisa Cash; Beau M Ances; Thomas Veale; David M Cash; Adam M Brickman; Virginia Buckles; Nigel J Cairns; Carlos Cruchaga; Alison Goate; Clifford R Jack; Celeste Karch; William Klunk; Robert A Koeppe; Daniel S Marcus; Richard Mayeux; Eric McDade; James M Noble; John Ringman; Andrew J Saykin; Paul M Thompson; Chengjie Xiong; John C Morris; Randall J Bateman; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2018-09-27
Authors: Francisco P M Oliveira; Ana Paula Moreira; Alexandre de Mendonça; Ana Verdelho; Carolina Xavier; Dalila Barroca; Joana Rio; Eva Cardoso; Ângela Cruz; Antero Abrunhosa; Miguel Castelo-Branco Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472