| Literature DB >> 29935545 |
Milos D Ikonomovic1,2, Enrico R Fantoni3, Gill Farrar3, Stephen Salloway4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The performance of [18F]flutemetamol amyloid PET against histopathological standards of truth was the subject of our recent article in Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring (2017;9:25-34). MAIN BODY: This viewpoint article addresses infrequently observed discordance between visual [18F]flutemetamol PET image readings and histopathology based solely on neuritic plaque assessment by CERAD criteria, which is resolved by assessing both neuritic and diffuse plaques and/or brain atrophy.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Amyloid; Diffuse plaques; Flutemetamol; Neuritic plaques; PET
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29935545 PMCID: PMC6015459 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-018-0387-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Impact factor: 6.982
Fig. 1Case examples of fibrillar amyloid burden and corresponding [18F]flutemetamol PET images from subjects in [2, 7]. Histopathology samples from all eight cortical regions were in agreement. Examples are taken from frontal sections except for row C, column 2 (4G8 IHC), a digital magnification showing diffuse amyloid plaques in the precuneus. Column 1: Bielschowsky silver staining (BSS) of neuritic plaques. Column 2: 4G8 Aβ immunohistochemistry (neuritic and diffuse Aβ plaques). Column 3: Axial [18F]flutemetamol PET. Column 4: Sagittal [18F]flutemetamol PET. Row A: True positive case (case 91 in [7]): 80-year-old male assessed as PET-positive by majority read (5/5 readers). Row B: True negative case (case 38 in [7]): 86-year-old male assessed as PET-negative by majority read (5/5 readers). Row C: False positive case (case 43 in [7]): 86-year-old female assessed as PET-positive by majority read (5/5 readers)