BACKGROUND: 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and 18F-florbetapir PET are approved neuroimaging biomarkers for the Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the efficacy of 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir PET at evaluating the cognitive performance of patients with AD, MCI, and normal controls (NC). METHODS: 63 subjects (36 male/27 female, mean age = 68.3) including 19 AD, 23 MCI, and 21 NC underwent 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir PET imaging. A global quantification approach was applied on supra-tentorial, frontal, parieto-occipital, temporal, and cerebellar brain regions by calculating the global SUVmean ratios (GSUVr) as the weighted average of all regional SUVmean. 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir GSUVr of each region were subsequently correlated with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). RESULTS: Subjects were studied in five categories as NC, MCI patients, AD patients, MCI and AD patients grouped together (MCI/AD), and a group including all the subjects (NC/MCI/AD). Both 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir could successfully detect subjects with dementia (p < 0.001). Studied in all regions and groups, the correlation analysis of 18F-FDG GSUVr with MMSE scores was significant in more regions and groups compared to that of 18F-florbetapir. We also demonstrated that the correlation of 18F-FDG GSUVr with MMSE is stronger than that of 18F-florbetapir in the supra-tentorial and temporal regions. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals how 18F-FDG-PET global quantification is a superior indicator of cognitive performance in AD and MCI patients compared to 18F-florbetapir PET. Accordingly, we still recommend 18F-FDG-PET over amyloid imaging in the evaluation for AD and MCI.
BACKGROUND:18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and 18F-florbetapir PET are approved neuroimaging biomarkers for the Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the efficacy of 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir PET at evaluating the cognitive performance of patients with AD, MCI, and normal controls (NC). METHODS: 63 subjects (36 male/27 female, mean age = 68.3) including 19 AD, 23 MCI, and 21 NC underwent 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir PET imaging. A global quantification approach was applied on supra-tentorial, frontal, parieto-occipital, temporal, and cerebellar brain regions by calculating the global SUVmean ratios (GSUVr) as the weighted average of all regional SUVmean. 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir GSUVr of each region were subsequently correlated with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). RESULTS: Subjects were studied in five categories as NC, MCI patients, ADpatients, MCI and ADpatients grouped together (MCI/AD), and a group including all the subjects (NC/MCI/AD). Both 18F-FDG and 18F-florbetapir could successfully detect subjects with dementia (p < 0.001). Studied in all regions and groups, the correlation analysis of 18F-FDG GSUVr with MMSE scores was significant in more regions and groups compared to that of 18F-florbetapir. We also demonstrated that the correlation of 18F-FDG GSUVr with MMSE is stronger than that of 18F-florbetapir in the supra-tentorial and temporal regions. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals how 18F-FDG-PET global quantification is a superior indicator of cognitive performance in AD and MCI patients compared to 18F-florbetapir PET. Accordingly, we still recommend 18F-FDG-PET over amyloid imaging in the evaluation for AD and MCI.
Authors: Jeremy N Ford; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Myrto Skafida; Shannon Glynn; Michael Amoashiy; Dale J Lange; Eaton Lin; Gloria C Chiang; Joseph R Osborne; Silky Pahlajani; Mony J de Leon; Jana Ivanidze Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-08-15
Authors: Baruh Polis; Margherita Squillario; Vyacheslav Gurevich; Kolluru D Srikanth; Michael Assa; Abraham O Samson Journal: Neurochem Res Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Sabrina Katzdobler; Alexander Nitschmann; Johannes Levin; Matthias Brendel; Henryk Barthel; Gerard Bischof; Leonie Beyer; Ken Marek; Mengmeng Song; Olivia Wagemann; Carla Palleis; Endy Weidinger; Anne Nack; Urban Fietzek; Carolin Kurz; Jan Häckert; Theresa Stapf; Christian Ferschmann; Maximilian Scheifele; Florian Eckenweber; Gloria Biechele; Nicolai Franzmeier; Anna Dewenter; Sonja Schönecker; Dorothee Saur; Matthias L Schroeter; Jost-Julian Rumpf; Michael Rullmann; Andreas Schildan; Marianne Patt; Andrew W Stephens; Thilo van Eimeren; Bernd Neumaier; Alexander Drzezga; Adrian Danek; Joseph Classen; Katharina Bürger; Daniel Janowitz; Boris-Stephan Rauchmann; Sophia Stöcklein; Robert Perneczky; Florian Schöberl; Andreas Zwergal; Günter U Höglinger; Peter Bartenstein; Victor Villemagne; John Seibyl; Osama Sabri Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matej Perovnik; Petra Tomše; Jan Jamšek; Andreja Emeršič; Chris Tang; David Eidelberg; Maja Trošt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Stephen C Cunnane; Mark J Millan; Eugenia Trushina; Cecilie Morland; Alessandro Prigione; Gemma Casadesus; Zane B Andrews; M Flint Beal; Linda H Bergersen; Roberta D Brinton; Suzanne de la Monte; Anne Eckert; Jenni Harvey; Ross Jeggo; Jack H Jhamandas; Oliver Kann; Clothide Mannoury la Cour; William F Martin; Gilles Mithieux; Paula I Moreira; Michael P Murphy; Klaus-Armin Nave; Tal Nuriel; Stéphane H R Oliet; Frédéric Saudou; Mark P Mattson; Russell H Swerdlow Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Dawn C Matthews; Xiangling Mao; Kathleen Dowd; Diamanto Tsakanikas; Caroline S Jiang; Caroline Meuser; Randolph D Andrews; Ana S Lukic; Jihyun Lee; Nicholas Hampilos; Neeva Shafiian; Mary Sano; P David Mozley; Howard Fillit; Bruce S McEwen; Dikoma C Shungu; Ana C Pereira Journal: Brain Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 15.255