Andreas Charidimou1, Karim Farid2, Jean-Claude Baron2. 1. From the Massachusetts General Hospital (A.C.), Stroke Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Department of Nuclear Medicine (K.F.), Martinique University Hospital, Fort-de-France, French West Indies; and Department of Neurology (J.-C.B.), Centre Hospitalier Sainte Anne, Inserm U894, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France. andreas.charidimou.09@ucl.ac.uk. 2. From the Massachusetts General Hospital (A.C.), Stroke Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Department of Nuclear Medicine (K.F.), Martinique University Hospital, Fort-de-France, French West Indies; and Department of Neurology (J.-C.B.), Centre Hospitalier Sainte Anne, Inserm U894, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis synthesizing evidence of the value and accuracy of amyloid-PET in diagnosing patients with sporadic cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). METHODS: In a PubMed systematic literature search, we identified all case-control studies with extractable data relevant for the sensitivity and specificity of amyloid-PET positivity in symptomatic patients with CAA (cases) vs healthy participants or patients with spontaneous deep intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) (control groups). Using a hierarchical (multilevel) logistic regression model, we calculated pooled diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: Seven studies, including 106 patients with CAA (>90% with probable CAA) and 151 controls, were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The studies were of moderate to high quality and varied in several methodological aspects, including definition of PET-positive and PET-negative cases and relevant cutoffs. The sensitivity of amyloid-PET for CAA diagnosis ranged from 60% to 91% and the specificity from 56% to 90%. The overall pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-89) and specificity was 78% (95% CI 67-86) for CAA diagnosis. A predefined subgroup analysis of studies restricted to symptomatic patients presenting with lobar ICH CAA (n = 58 vs 86 controls) resulted in 79% sensitivity (95% CI 61-90%) and 84% specificity (95% CI 65-93%). In prespecified bivariate diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of 2 studies using 18F-florbetapir-PET, the sensitivity for CAA-ICH diagnosis was 90% (95% CI 76-100%) and specificity was 88% (95% CI 74-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Amyloid-PET appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with probable CAA from cognitively normal healthy controls or patients with deep ICH. Given that amyloid-PET labels both cerebrovascular and parenchymal amyloid, a negative scan might be useful to rule out CAA in the appropriate clinical setting.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis synthesizing evidence of the value and accuracy of amyloid-PET in diagnosing patients with sporadic cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). METHODS: In a PubMed systematic literature search, we identified all case-control studies with extractable data relevant for the sensitivity and specificity of amyloid-PET positivity in symptomatic patients with CAA (cases) vs healthy participants or patients with spontaneous deep intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) (control groups). Using a hierarchical (multilevel) logistic regression model, we calculated pooled diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: Seven studies, including 106 patients with CAA (>90% with probable CAA) and 151 controls, were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The studies were of moderate to high quality and varied in several methodological aspects, including definition of PET-positive and PET-negative cases and relevant cutoffs. The sensitivity of amyloid-PET for CAA diagnosis ranged from 60% to 91% and the specificity from 56% to 90%. The overall pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-89) and specificity was 78% (95% CI 67-86) for CAA diagnosis. A predefined subgroup analysis of studies restricted to symptomatic patients presenting with lobar ICH CAA (n = 58 vs 86 controls) resulted in 79% sensitivity (95% CI 61-90%) and 84% specificity (95% CI 65-93%). In prespecified bivariate diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of 2 studies using 18F-florbetapir-PET, the sensitivity for CAA-ICH diagnosis was 90% (95% CI 76-100%) and specificity was 88% (95% CI 74-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Amyloid-PET appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with probable CAA from cognitively normal healthy controls or patients with deep ICH. Given that amyloid-PET labels both cerebrovascular and parenchymal amyloid, a negative scan might be useful to rule out CAA in the appropriate clinical setting.
Authors: Hyemin Jang; Young Kyoung Jang; Hee Jin Kim; David John Werring; Jin San Lee; Yeong Sim Choe; Seongbeom Park; Juyeon Lee; Ko Woon Kim; Yeshin Kim; Soo Hyun Cho; Si Eun Kim; Seung Joo Kim; Andreas Charidimou; Duk L Na; Sang Won Seo Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Aaron P Schultz; Reina W Kloet; Hamid R Sohrabi; Louise van der Weerd; Sanneke van Rooden; Marieke J H Wermer; Laure Grand Moursel; Maqsood Yaqub; Bart N M van Berckel; Pratishtha Chatterjee; Samantha L Gardener; Kevin Taddei; Anne M Fagan; Tammie L Benzinger; John C Morris; Reisa Sperling; Keith Johnson; Randall J Bateman; M Edip Gurol; Mark A van Buchem; Ralph Martins; Jasmeer P Chhatwal; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Andreas Charidimou; Gregoire Boulouis; Matthew P Frosch; Jean-Claude Baron; Marco Pasi; Jean Francois Albucher; Gargi Banerjee; Carmen Barbato; Fabrice Bonneville; Sebastian Brandner; Lionel Calviere; François Caparros; Barbara Casolla; Charlotte Cordonnier; Marie-Bernadette Delisle; Vincent Deramecourt; Martin Dichgans; Elif Gokcal; Jochen Herms; Mar Hernandez-Guillamon; Hans Rolf Jäger; Zane Jaunmuktane; Jennifer Linn; Sergi Martinez-Ramirez; Elena Martínez-Sáez; Christian Mawrin; Joan Montaner; Solene Moulin; Jean-Marc Olivot; Fabrizio Piazza; Laurent Puy; Nicolas Raposo; Mark A Rodrigues; Sigrun Roeber; Jose Rafael Romero; Neshika Samarasekera; Julie A Schneider; Stefanie Schreiber; Frank Schreiber; Corentin Schwall; Colin Smith; Levente Szalardy; Pascale Varlet; Alain Viguier; Joanna M Wardlaw; Andrew Warren; Frank A Wollenweber; Marialuisa Zedde; Mark A van Buchem; M Edip Gurol; Anand Viswanathan; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Eric E Smith; David J Werring; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 59.935
Authors: Susanne J van Veluw; Ashley A Scherlek; Whitney M Freeze; Annemieke Ter Telgte; Andre J van der Kouwe; Brian J Bacskai; Matthew P Frosch; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Dorothee Schoemaker; Andreas Charidimou; Maria Clara Zanon Zotin; Nicolas Raposo; Keith A Johnson; Justin S Sanchez; Steven M Greenberg; Anand Viswanathan Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Stuart J McCarter; Timothy G Lesnick; Val Lowe; Michelle M Mielke; Eleni Constantopoulos; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Scott A Przybelski; Hugo Botha; David T Jones; Vijay K Ramanan; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; David Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Melissa E Murray; Dennis W Dickson; Prashanthi Vemuri; Kejal Kantarci; R Ross Reichard; Jonathan Graff-Radford Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Nelly Joseph-Mathurin; Namita Sinha; Aihong Zhou; Nigel J Cairns; Tammie L S Benzinger; Charles D Chen; Yan Li; Karl Friedrichsen; Austin McCullough; Erin E Franklin; Russ Hornbeck; Brian Gordon; Vijay Sharma; Carlos Cruchaga; Alison Goate; Celeste Karch; Eric McDade; Chengjie Xiong; Randall J Bateman; Bernardino Ghetti; John M Ringman; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Colin L Masters; Catriona McLean; Tammaryn Lashley; Yi Su; Robert Koeppe; Clifford Jack; William E Klunk; John C Morris; Richard J Perrin Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 15.887