David Bergeron1, Rik Ossenkoppele2, Robert Jr Laforce1. 1. Clinique Interdisciplinaire de Mémoire, Département des Sciences Neurologiques du CHU de Québec, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Neurology and Alzheimer Center, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amyloid-β positron emission tomography (PET) allows for in vivo detection of fibrillar amyloid plaques, a pathologic hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, amyloid-β PET interpretation is limited by the imperfect correlation between PET and autopsy, and the fact that it is positive in about 20% to 30% of cognitively normal individuals and non-AD dementias, especially when older or carrying the ε4 allele of apolipoprotein E (ApoE4). When facing a positive amyloid PET, clinicians have to evaluate the probability of a pathologic false positive as well as the probability of amyloid positivity being age-related, comorbid to a primary non-AD dementia (clinicopathologic false positive). These probabilities can be calculated to reach an evidence-based interpretation of amyloid-β. As literature review and calculations cannot be easily performed in the day-to-day clinic, we propose a clinician friendly, evidence-based Bayesian approach to the interpretation of amyloid-β PET results in the differential diagnosis of patients with cognitive impairment. METHODS: We defined AD as a clinicopathologic entity in which amyloid-β is the primary cause of cognitive impairment. We systematically reviewed the literature to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of amyloid-β PET against neuropathologic examination. We inferred rates of clinicopathologic false positivity (non-AD dementia with comorbid amyloid) based on age-dependent and ApoE-dependent prevalence of amyloid positivity in normal individuals and AD patients provided in large meta-analyses published by the Amyloid Biomarker Study Group. We calculated positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of amyloid-β PET, which are presented in a clinician-friendly table. RESULTS: PPV of PET is highest in young ApoE4- patients with high pre-PET probability of AD. In older ApoE4+ patients with low pre-PET probability of AD, positive amyloid-β PET scans must be interpreted with caution. A negative amyloid-β PET makes a diagnosis of AD unlikely except in old patients with high pre-PET probability of AD. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based approach might provide guidance to clinicians and nuclear medicine physicians to interpret amyloid-β PET results for early and differential diagnosis of patients with progressive cognitive impairment.
BACKGROUND: Amyloid-β positron emission tomography (PET) allows for in vivo detection of fibrillar amyloid plaques, a pathologic hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, amyloid-β PET interpretation is limited by the imperfect correlation between PET and autopsy, and the fact that it is positive in about 20% to 30% of cognitively normal individuals and non-AD dementias, especially when older or carrying the ε4 allele of apolipoprotein E (ApoE4). When facing a positive amyloid PET, clinicians have to evaluate the probability of a pathologic false positive as well as the probability of amyloid positivity being age-related, comorbid to a primary non-AD dementia (clinicopathologic false positive). These probabilities can be calculated to reach an evidence-based interpretation of amyloid-β. As literature review and calculations cannot be easily performed in the day-to-day clinic, we propose a clinician friendly, evidence-based Bayesian approach to the interpretation of amyloid-β PET results in the differential diagnosis of patients with cognitive impairment. METHODS: We defined AD as a clinicopathologic entity in which amyloid-β is the primary cause of cognitive impairment. We systematically reviewed the literature to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of amyloid-β PET against neuropathologic examination. We inferred rates of clinicopathologic false positivity (non-AD dementia with comorbid amyloid) based on age-dependent and ApoE-dependent prevalence of amyloid positivity in normal individuals and ADpatients provided in large meta-analyses published by the Amyloid Biomarker Study Group. We calculated positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of amyloid-β PET, which are presented in a clinician-friendly table. RESULTS: PPV of PET is highest in young ApoE4- patients with high pre-PET probability of AD. In older ApoE4+ patients with low pre-PET probability of AD, positive amyloid-β PET scans must be interpreted with caution. A negative amyloid-β PET makes a diagnosis of AD unlikely except in old patients with high pre-PET probability of AD. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based approach might provide guidance to clinicians and nuclear medicine physicians to interpret amyloid-β PET results for early and differential diagnosis of patients with progressive cognitive impairment.
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: Rik Ossenkoppele; Gil D Rabinovici; Ruben Smith; Hanna Cho; Michael Schöll; Olof Strandberg; Sebastian Palmqvist; Niklas Mattsson; Shorena Janelidze; Alexander Santillo; Tomas Ohlsson; Jonas Jögi; Richard Tsai; Renaud La Joie; Joel Kramer; Adam L Boxer; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Bruce L Miller; Jae Y Choi; Young H Ryu; Chul H Lyoo; Oskar Hansson Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tobias Langheinrich; Christopher Kobylecki; Matthew Jones; Jennifer C Thompson; Julie S Snowden; Rainer Hinz; Stuart Pickering-Brown; David Mann; Federico Roncaroli; Karl Herholz; Alex Gerhard Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2021-12
Authors: Stefan Teipel; Deborah Gustafson; Rik Ossenkoppele; Oskar Hansson; Claudio Babiloni; Michael Wagner; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Ingo Kilimann; Yi Tang Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: David Bergeron; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Gil D Rabinovici; Miguel A Santos-Santos; William Seeley; Bruce L Miller; Yolande Pijnenburg; M Antoinette Keulen; Colin Groot; Bart N M van Berckel; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Jonathan D Rohrer; Jason D Warren; Jonathan M Schott; Nick C Fox; Raquel Sanchez-Valle; Oriol Grau-Rivera; Ellen Gelpi; Harro Seelaar; Janne M Papma; John C van Swieten; John R Hodges; Cristian E Leyton; Olivier Piguet; Emily J Rogalski; Marsel M Mesulam; Lejla Koric; Kristensen Nora; Jeéreémie Pariente; Bradford Dickerson; Ian R Mackenzie; Ging-Yuek R Hsiung; Serge Belliard; David J Irwin; David A Wolk; Murray Grossman; Matthew Jones; Jennifer Harris; David Mann; Julie S Snowden; Patricio Chrem-Mendez; Ismael L Calandri; Alejandra A Amengual; Carole Miguet-Alfonsi; Eloi Magnin; Giuseppe Magnani; Roberto Santangelo; Vincent Deramecourt; Florence Pasquier; Niklas Mattsson; Christer Nilsson; Oskar Hansson; Julia Keith; Mario Masellis; Sandra E Black; Jordi A Matías-Guiu; María-Nieves Cabrera-Martin; Claire Paquet; Julien Dumurgier; Marc Teichmann; Marie Sarazin; Michel Bottlaender; Bruno Dubois; Christopher C Rowe; Victor L Villemagne; Rik Vandenberghe; Elias Granadillo; Edmond Teng; Mario Mendez; Philipp T Meyer; Lars Frings; Alberto Lleó; Rafael Blesa; Juan Fortea; Sang Won Seo; Janine Diehl-Schmid; Timo Grimmer; Kristian Steen Frederiksen; Pascual Sánchez-Juan; Gaël Chételat; Willemijn Jansen; Rémi W Bouchard; Robert Jr Laforce; Pieter Jelle Visser; Rik Ossenkoppele Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Arno de Wilde; Juhan Reimand; Charlotte E Teunissen; Marissa Zwan; Albert D Windhorst; Ronald Boellaard; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Bart N M van Berckel; Femke Bouwman; Rik Ossenkoppele Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Manish D Paranjpe; Stella Belonwu; Jason K Wang; Tomiko Oskotsky; Aarzu Gupta; Alice Taubes; Kelly A Zalocusky; Ishan Paranjpe; Benjamin S Glicksberg; Yadong Huang; Marina Sirota Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 5.702