BACKGROUND: Published appropriate use criteria (AUC) describe patients for whom amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) might be most useful. This study compared the impact of amyloid PET on diagnosis and management in subjects likely to either meet or not meet AUC. METHODS: Physicians provided a provisional diagnosis and management plan for patients presenting with cognitive decline before and after amyloid PET imaging with florbetapir F 18. Participants were classified as AUC-like or not, based on the prescan diagnosis and demographic features. RESULTS: In all, 125 of 229 participants (55%) were classified as AUC-like. Sixty-two percent of the AUC-like subjects had a change in diagnosis after scanning compared with 45% of the non-AUC subjects (p = 0.011). Both groups demonstrated high rates of change in their management plans after scanning (88.0% for AUC-like cases, 85.6% for non-AUC cases). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of amyloid imaging on diagnosis and planned management was maintained and, if anything, amplified in AUC-like patients.
BACKGROUND: Published appropriate use criteria (AUC) describe patients for whom amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) might be most useful. This study compared the impact of amyloid PET on diagnosis and management in subjects likely to either meet or not meet AUC. METHODS: Physicians provided a provisional diagnosis and management plan for patients presenting with cognitive decline before and after amyloid PET imaging with florbetapir F 18. Participants were classified as AUC-like or not, based on the prescan diagnosis and demographic features. RESULTS: In all, 125 of 229 participants (55%) were classified as AUC-like. Sixty-two percent of the AUC-like subjects had a change in diagnosis after scanning compared with 45% of the non-AUC subjects (p = 0.011). Both groups demonstrated high rates of change in their management plans after scanning (88.0% for AUC-like cases, 85.6% for non-AUC cases). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of amyloid imaging on diagnosis and planned management was maintained and, if anything, amplified in AUC-like patients.
Authors: Arno de Wilde; Wiesje M van der Flier; Wiesje Pelkmans; Femke Bouwman; Jurre Verwer; Colin Groot; Marieke M van Buchem; Marissa Zwan; Rik Ossenkoppele; Maqsood Yaqub; Marleen Kunneman; Ellen M A Smets; Frederik Barkhof; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Andrew Stephens; Erik van Lier; Geert Jan Biessels; Bart N van Berckel; Philip Scheltens Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Yat-Fung Shea; Warren Barker; Maria T Greig-Gusto; David A Loewenstein; Ranjan Duara; Steven T DeKosky Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Yat-Fung Shea; Warren Barker; Maria T Greig-Gusto; David A Loewenstein; Steven T DeKosky; Ranjan Duara Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Rafid Mustafa; Jared R Brosch; Gil D Rabinovici; Bradford C Dickerson; Maria C Carrillo; Bradley S Glazier; Sujuan Gao; Martha Tierney; Keith N Fargo; Mary G Austrom; Susan De Santi; David G Clark; Liana G Apostolova Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2018 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Michael J Pontecorvo; Andrew Siderowf; Bruno Dubois; P Murali Doraiswamy; Giovanni B Frisoni; Michael Grundman; Flavio Nobili; Carl H Sadowsky; Stephen Salloway; Anupa K Arora; Antoine Chevrette; Walter Deberdt; Grazia Dell'Agnello; Matthew Flitter; Nick Galante; Mark J Lowrey; Ming Lu; Anne McGeehan; Michael D Devous; Mark A Mintun Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: S Schönecker; C Prix; T Raiser; N Ackl; E Wlasich; G Stenglein-Krapf; E Mille; M Brendel; O Sabri; M Patt; H Barthel; P Bartenstein; J Levin; A Rominger; A Danek Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 1.214