Daniele Altomare1, Clarissa Ferrari2, Cristina Festari1, Ugo Paolo Guerra3, Cristina Muscio4, Alessandro Padovani5, Giovanni B Frisoni6, Marina Boccardi7. 1. Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging and Epidemiology (LANE), Saint John of God Clinical Research Centre, Brescia, Italy; Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 2. Unit of Statistics, Saint John of God Clinical Research Centre, Brescia, Italy. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Poliambulanza Foundation, Brescia, Italy. 4. Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging and Epidemiology (LANE), Saint John of God Clinical Research Centre, Brescia, Italy; Division of Neurology V-Neuropathology, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy. 5. Centre for Aging Brain and Neurodegenerative Disorders, Neurology Unit, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 6. Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging and Epidemiology (LANE), Saint John of God Clinical Research Centre, Brescia, Italy; Laboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Memory Clinic, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging and Epidemiology (LANE), Saint John of God Clinical Research Centre, Brescia, Italy; Laboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: marina.boccardi@unige.ch.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We test the hypothesis that amyloid-positron emission tomography prescriptions, considered appropriate based on the Amyloid Imaging Taskforce (AIT) criteria, lead to greater clinical utility than AIT-inappropriate prescriptions. METHODS: We compared the clinical utility between patients who underwent amyloid-positron emission tomography appropriately or inappropriately and among the subgroups of patients defined by the AIT criteria. Finally, we performed logistic regressions to identify variables associated with clinical utility. RESULTS: We identified 171 AIT-appropriate and 67 AIT-inappropriate patients. AIT-appropriate and AIT-inappropriate cases did not differ in any outcomes of clinical utility (P > .05). Subgroup analysis denoted both expected and unexpected results. The logistic regressions outlined the primary role of clinical picture and clinical or neuropsychological profile in identifying patients benefitting from amyloid-positron emission tomography. DISCUSSION: Contrary to our hypothesis, also AIT-inappropriate prescriptions were associated with clinical utility. Clinical or neuropsychological variables, not taken into account by the AIT criteria, may help further refine criteria for appropriateness.
INTRODUCTION: We test the hypothesis that amyloid-positron emission tomography prescriptions, considered appropriate based on the Amyloid Imaging Taskforce (AIT) criteria, lead to greater clinical utility than AIT-inappropriate prescriptions. METHODS: We compared the clinical utility between patients who underwent amyloid-positron emission tomography appropriately or inappropriately and among the subgroups of patients defined by the AIT criteria. Finally, we performed logistic regressions to identify variables associated with clinical utility. RESULTS: We identified 171 AIT-appropriate and 67 AIT-inappropriatepatients. AIT-appropriate and AIT-inappropriate cases did not differ in any outcomes of clinical utility (P > .05). Subgroup analysis denoted both expected and unexpected results. The logistic regressions outlined the primary role of clinical picture and clinical or neuropsychological profile in identifying patients benefitting from amyloid-positron emission tomography. DISCUSSION: Contrary to our hypothesis, also AIT-inappropriate prescriptions were associated with clinical utility. Clinical or neuropsychological variables, not taken into account by the AIT criteria, may help further refine criteria for appropriateness.
Authors: Katherine W Turk; Ana Vives-Rodriguez; Kylie A Schiloski; Anna Marin; Ryan Wang; Prabhjyot Singh; Gabor P Hajos; Rachel Powsner; Renée DeCaro; Andrew E Budson Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-08-17
Authors: Hugh G Pemberton; Lyduine E Collij; Fiona Heeman; Ariane Bollack; Mahnaz Shekari; Gemma Salvadó; Isadora Lopes Alves; David Vallez Garcia; Mark Battle; Christopher Buckley; Andrew W Stephens; Santiago Bullich; Valentina Garibotto; Frederik Barkhof; Juan Domingo Gispert; Gill Farrar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 10.057