Adrian Ivanoiu1, Laurence Dricot2, Nathalie Gilis3, Cécile Grandin4, Renaud Lhommel5, Lisa Quenon2, Bernard Hanseeuw1. 1. Neurology Department, Saint Luc University Hospital, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium Institute of Neuroscience, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 2. Institute of Neuroscience, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Neurology Department, Saint Luc University Hospital, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Radiology Department, Saint Luc University Hospital, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium Institute of Neuroscience, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Nuclear Medicine Department, Saint Luc University Hospital, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New diagnostic criteria for predemential Alzheimer's disease (AD) advocate the use of biomarkers. However, the benefit of using biomarkers has not been clearly demonstrated in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a combination of biomarkers may be helpful in classifying a population of non-demented patients attending a Memory Clinic. METHODS: Sixty non-demented patients were compared with 31 healthy elderly subjects. All subjects underwent a neuropsychological examination, brain 3T magnetic resonance imaging, [F18]-fluorodeoxyglucose and [F18]-flutemetamol positron emission tomography. According to their performance on memory, language, executive, and visuo-spatial domains, the patients were classified as mild cognitive impairment (amnestic, non-amnestic, single, or multiple domain) or subjective cognitive impairment. Patients were then classified according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) criteria, using the normalized mean hippocampal volume (Freesurfer), [F18]-FDG PALZAD, and [F18]-flutemetamol standard uptake value ratio (SUVr) (cut-off at the 10th percentile of controls). The standard of truth was the clinical status at study entry (patient versus control). RESULTS: The sensitivity/specificity of the clinical classification was 65/84%. The NIA-AA criteria were applicable in 85% of patients and 87% of controls. For biomarkers the best sensitivity (72%) at a fixed specificity of 84% was achieved by a combination of the three biomarkers. The clinical diagnosis was reconsidered in more than one third of the patients (42%) as a result of including the biomarker results. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the new NIA-AA AD diagnostic criteria based on biomarkers in an unselected sample of non-demented patients attending a Memory Clinic was useful in allowing for a better classification of the subjects.
BACKGROUND: New diagnostic criteria for predemential Alzheimer's disease (AD) advocate the use of biomarkers. However, the benefit of using biomarkers has not been clearly demonstrated in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a combination of biomarkers may be helpful in classifying a population of non-demented patients attending a Memory Clinic. METHODS: Sixty non-demented patients were compared with 31 healthy elderly subjects. All subjects underwent a neuropsychological examination, brain 3T magnetic resonance imaging, [F18]-fluorodeoxyglucose and [F18]-flutemetamol positron emission tomography. According to their performance on memory, language, executive, and visuo-spatial domains, the patients were classified as mild cognitive impairment (amnestic, non-amnestic, single, or multiple domain) or subjective cognitive impairment. Patients were then classified according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) criteria, using the normalized mean hippocampal volume (Freesurfer), [F18]-FDG PALZAD, and [F18]-flutemetamol standard uptake value ratio (SUVr) (cut-off at the 10th percentile of controls). The standard of truth was the clinical status at study entry (patient versus control). RESULTS: The sensitivity/specificity of the clinical classification was 65/84%. The NIA-AA criteria were applicable in 85% of patients and 87% of controls. For biomarkers the best sensitivity (72%) at a fixed specificity of 84% was achieved by a combination of the three biomarkers. The clinical diagnosis was reconsidered in more than one third of the patients (42%) as a result of including the biomarker results. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the new NIA-AA AD diagnostic criteria based on biomarkers in an unselected sample of non-demented patients attending a Memory Clinic was useful in allowing for a better classification of the subjects.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alzheimer's disease; biological markers; early diagnosis; mild cognitive impairment
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: Jon B Toledo; Maria Bjerke; Kewei Chen; Martin Rozycki; Clifford R Jack; Michael W Weiner; Steven E Arnold; Eric M Reiman; Christos Davatzikos; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Piotr Lewczuk; Peter Riederer; Sid E O'Bryant; Marcel M Verbeek; Bruno Dubois; Pieter Jelle Visser; Kurt A Jellinger; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Alfredo Ramirez; Lucilla Parnetti; Clifford R Jack; Charlotte E Teunissen; Harald Hampel; Alberto Lleó; Frank Jessen; Lidia Glodzik; Mony J de Leon; Anne M Fagan; José Luis Molinuevo; Willemijn J Jansen; Bengt Winblad; Leslie M Shaw; Ulf Andreasson; Markus Otto; Brit Mollenhauer; Jens Wiltfang; Martin R Turner; Inga Zerr; Ron Handels; Alexander G Thompson; Gunilla Johansson; Natalia Ermann; John Q Trojanowski; Ilker Karaca; Holger Wagner; Patrick Oeckl; Linda van Waalwijk van Doorn; Maria Bjerke; Dimitrios Kapogiannis; H Bea Kuiperij; Lucia Farotti; Yi Li; Brian A Gordon; Stéphane Epelbaum; Stephanie J B Vos; Catharina J M Klijn; William E Van Nostrand; Carolina Minguillon; Matthias Schmitz; Carla Gallo; Andrea Lopez Mato; Florence Thibaut; Simone Lista; Daniel Alcolea; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Johannes Kornhuber Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Stephanie J B Vos; Brian A Gordon; Yi Su; Pieter Jelle Visser; David M Holtzman; John C Morris; Anne M Fagan; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Enrico R Fantoni; Anastasia Chalkidou; John T O' Brien; Gill Farrar; Alexander Hammers Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Brian A Gordon; Tyler Blazey; Yi Su; Anne M Fagan; David M Holtzman; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Eric R Braverman; Kenneth Blum; Karl L Hussman; David Han; Kristina Dushaj; Mona Li; Gabriela Marin; Rajendra D Badgaiyan; Richard Smayda; Mark S Gold Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 3.240