OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of antemortem 11 C-Pittsburgh compound B (PIB) and 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) versus autopsy diagnosis in a heterogenous sample of patients. METHODS: One hundred one participants underwent PIB and FDG PET during life and neuropathological assessment. PET scans were visually interpreted by 3 raters blinded to clinical information. PIB PET was rated as positive or negative for cortical retention, whereas FDG scans were read as showing an Alzheimer disease (AD) or non-AD pattern. Neuropathological diagnoses were assigned using research criteria. Majority visual reads were compared to intermediate-high AD neuropathological change (ADNC). RESULTS: One hundred one participants were included (mean age = 67.2 years, 41 females, Mini-Mental State Examination = 21.9, PET-to-autopsy interval = 4.4 years). At autopsy, 32 patients showed primary AD, 56 showed non-AD neuropathology (primarily frontotemporal lobar degeneration [FTLD]), and 13 showed mixed AD/FTLD pathology. PIB showed higher sensitivity than FDG for detecting intermediate-high ADNC (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 89-100% vs 80%, 95% CI = 68-92%, p = 0.02), but equivalent specificity (86%, 95% CI = 76-95% vs 84%, 95% CI = 74-93%, p = 0.80). In patients with congruent PIB and FDG reads (77/101), combined sensitivity was 97% (95% CI = 92-100%) and specificity was 98% (95% CI = 93-100%). Nine of 24 patients with incongruent reads were found to have co-occurrence of AD and non-AD pathologies. INTERPRETATION: In our sample enriched for younger onset cognitive impairment, PIB-PET had higher sensitivity than FDG-PET for intermediate-high ADNC, with similar specificity. When both modalities are congruent, sensitivity and specificity approach 100%, whereas mixed pathology should be considered when PIB and FDG are incongruent. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:389-401.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of antemortem 11 C-Pittsburgh compound B (PIB) and 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) versus autopsy diagnosis in a heterogenous sample of patients. METHODS: One hundred one participants underwent PIB and FDG PET during life and neuropathological assessment. PET scans were visually interpreted by 3 raters blinded to clinical information. PIB PET was rated as positive or negative for cortical retention, whereas FDG scans were read as showing an Alzheimer disease (AD) or non-AD pattern. Neuropathological diagnoses were assigned using research criteria. Majority visual reads were compared to intermediate-high AD neuropathological change (ADNC). RESULTS: One hundred one participants were included (mean age = 67.2 years, 41 females, Mini-Mental State Examination = 21.9, PET-to-autopsy interval = 4.4 years). At autopsy, 32 patients showed primary AD, 56 showed non-AD neuropathology (primarily frontotemporal lobar degeneration [FTLD]), and 13 showed mixed AD/FTLD pathology. PIB showed higher sensitivity than FDG for detecting intermediate-high ADNC (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 89-100% vs 80%, 95% CI = 68-92%, p = 0.02), but equivalent specificity (86%, 95% CI = 76-95% vs 84%, 95% CI = 74-93%, p = 0.80). In patients with congruent PIB and FDG reads (77/101), combined sensitivity was 97% (95% CI = 92-100%) and specificity was 98% (95% CI = 93-100%). Nine of 24 patients with incongruent reads were found to have co-occurrence of AD and non-AD pathologies. INTERPRETATION: In our sample enriched for younger onset cognitive impairment, PIB-PET had higher sensitivity than FDG-PET for intermediate-high ADNC, with similar specificity. When both modalities are congruent, sensitivity and specificity approach 100%, whereas mixed pathology should be considered when PIB and FDG are incongruent. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:389-401.
Authors: Marilyn S Albert; Steven T DeKosky; Dennis Dickson; Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Nick C Fox; Anthony Gamst; David M Holtzman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Peter J Snyder; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Rachel S Mulligan; Svetlana Pejoska; Kevin Ong; Gareth Jones; Graeme O'Keefe; J Gordon Chan; Kenneth Young; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Daniel R Schonhaut; Michael Schöll; Samuel N Lockhart; Nagehan Ayakta; Suzanne L Baker; James P O'Neil; Mustafa Janabi; Andreas Lazaris; Averill Cantwell; Jacob Vogel; Miguel Santos; Zachary A Miller; Brianne M Bettcher; Keith A Vossel; Joel H Kramer; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Brain Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Mark S Forman; Jennifer Farmer; Julene K Johnson; Christopher M Clark; Steven E Arnold; H Branch Coslett; Anjan Chatterjee; Howard I Hurtig; Jason H Karlawish; Howard J Rosen; Vivianna Van Deerlin; Virginia M-Y Lee; Bruce L Miller; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Natalie L Marchant; Bruce R Reed; Nerses Sanossian; Cindee M Madison; Stephen Kriger; Roxana Dhada; Wendy J Mack; Charles DeCarli; Michael W Weiner; Dan M Mungas; Helena C Chui; William J Jagust Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Heiko Braak; Irina Alafuzoff; Thomas Arzberger; Hans Kretzschmar; Kelly Del Tredici Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2006-08-12 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Sang Won Seo; Nagehan Ayakta; Lea T Grinberg; Sylvia Villeneuve; Manja Lehmann; Bruce Reed; Charles DeCarli; Bruce L Miller; Howard J Rosen; Adam L Boxer; James P O'Neil; Lee-Way Jin; William W Seeley; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Leonardo Iaccarino; Daniel R Schonhaut; Jesse A Brown; Renaud La Joie; James P O'Neil; Mustafa Janabi; Suzanne L Baker; Joel H Kramer; Maria-Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Bruce L Miller; Howard J Rosen; William W Seeley; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Alan J Thomas; Johannes Attems; Sean J Colloby; John T O'Brien; Ian McKeith; Rodney Walker; Lean Lee; David Burn; Debra J Lett; Zuzana Walker Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 9.910