S Schönecker1, C Prix2, T Raiser3, N Ackl4, E Wlasich2, G Stenglein-Krapf2, E Mille5, M Brendel5, O Sabri6, M Patt6, H Barthel6, P Bartenstein5,7, J Levin2,3, A Rominger5,7, A Danek2. 1. Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Deutschland. sonja.schoenecker@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Deutschland. 3. Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE), München, Deutschland. 4. Memory Clinic, Psychiatrische Dienste Thurgau, Münsterlingen, Schweiz. 5. Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Deutschland. 6. Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland. 7. Munich Cluster Syst Neurol SyNergy, München, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To this day the definite diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease still relies on post-mortem histopathological detection of neurofibrillary tangles and beta-amyloid deposits. Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is a new diagnostic tool that enables the in vivo quantification of pathological beta-amyloid deposits. The aim of the current study was to evaluate to what extent 18F-florbetaben-PET (FBB-PET) influences the diagnosis of patients with dementia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Imaging with FBB-PET was performed on 33 patients from our outpatient department for cognitive neurology. Beforehand all patients underwent a comprehensive clinical, neuropsychiatric and laboratory examination as well as imaging by means of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET. The working diagnoses before and after FBB-PET imaging were compared. RESULTS: 17 out of 33 patients were scored as FBB-PET positive. In four cases the initial diagnosis had to be changed to Alzheimer's disease (three cases) and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (one case) due to the positive FBB-PET scan. 16 patients showed a negative FBB-PET scan. In three patients the initial diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease could be ruled out due to the negative FBB-PET scan. Overall, in 7 out of 33 examined patients the initial diagnosis had to be changed because of the findings of the FBB-PET scan. In 24 patients the initial diagnosis was confirmed by the results of the FBB-PET scan. CONCLUSION: Amyloid-PET is currently no standard procedure in the diagnosis of dementia; however, it can be a helpful additional diagnostic tool when used according to the "Appropriate Use Criteria" and the S3 guidelines on dementia in cases of unclear clinical presentation, atypically early age of onset as well as in patients with persistent or progressive unexplained mild cognitive impairment. By facilitating early diagnosis amyloid-PET imaging allows patient selection for therapeutic drug trials.
BACKGROUND: To this day the definite diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease still relies on post-mortem histopathological detection of neurofibrillary tangles and beta-amyloid deposits. Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is a new diagnostic tool that enables the in vivo quantification of pathological beta-amyloid deposits. The aim of the current study was to evaluate to what extent 18F-florbetaben-PET (FBB-PET) influences the diagnosis of patients with dementia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Imaging with FBB-PET was performed on 33 patients from our outpatient department for cognitive neurology. Beforehand all patients underwent a comprehensive clinical, neuropsychiatric and laboratory examination as well as imaging by means of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET. The working diagnoses before and after FBB-PET imaging were compared. RESULTS: 17 out of 33 patients were scored as FBB-PET positive. In four cases the initial diagnosis had to be changed to Alzheimer's disease (three cases) and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (one case) due to the positive FBB-PET scan. 16 patients showed a negative FBB-PET scan. In three patients the initial diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease could be ruled out due to the negative FBB-PET scan. Overall, in 7 out of 33 examined patients the initial diagnosis had to be changed because of the findings of the FBB-PET scan. In 24 patients the initial diagnosis was confirmed by the results of the FBB-PET scan. CONCLUSION: Amyloid-PET is currently no standard procedure in the diagnosis of dementia; however, it can be a helpful additional diagnostic tool when used according to the "Appropriate Use Criteria" and the S3 guidelines on dementia in cases of unclear clinical presentation, atypically early age of onset as well as in patients with persistent or progressive unexplained mild cognitive impairment. By facilitating early diagnosis amyloid-PET imaging allows patient selection for therapeutic drug trials.
Authors: M L Gorno-Tempini; A E Hillis; S Weintraub; A Kertesz; M Mendez; S F Cappa; J M Ogar; J D Rohrer; S Black; B F Boeve; F Manes; N F Dronkers; R Vandenberghe; K Rascovsky; K Patterson; B L Miller; D S Knopman; J R Hodges; M M Mesulam; M Grossman Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: C G Schipke; O Peters; I Heuser; T Grimmer; M N Sabbagh; O Sabri; C Hock; M Kunz; J Kuhlmann; C Reininger; M Blankenburg Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Rachelle S Doody; Ronald G Thomas; Martin Farlow; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Bruno Vellas; Steven Joffe; Karl Kieburtz; Rema Raman; Xiaoying Sun; Paul S Aisen; Eric Siemers; Hong Liu-Seifert; Richard Mohs Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 91.245
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: B Rumble; R Retallack; C Hilbich; G Simms; G Multhaup; R Martins; A Hockey; P Montgomery; K Beyreuther; C L Masters Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-06-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kevin T Ong; Victor L Villemagne; Alex Bahar-Fuchs; Fiona Lamb; Narelle Langdon; Ana M Catafau; Andrew W Stephens; John Seibyl; Ludger M Dinkelborg; Cornelia B Reininger; Barbara Putz; Beate Rohde; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Shien Guo; Denis Getsios; Luis Hernandez; Kelly Cho; Elizabeth Lawler; Arman Altincatal; Stephan Lanes; Michael Blankenburg Journal: Int J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2012-12-26
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: Eva María Triviño-Ibáñez; Raquel Sánchez-Vañó; Pablo Sopena-Novales; Juan Carlos Romero-Fábrega; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Cristóbal Carnero Pardo; María Dolores Martínez Lozano; Manuel Gómez-Río Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Sanka Amadoru; Vincent Doré; Catriona A McLean; Fairlie Hinton; Claire E Shepherd; Glenda M Halliday; Cristian E Leyton; Paul A Yates; John R Hodges; Colin L Masters; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 6.982