BACKGROUND: The two biomarkers 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are both recommended to support the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. However, there is a lack of knowledge for the comparison of the two biomarkers in a routine clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical impact of 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers on diagnosis, prognosis, and patient management in patients suspected of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Eighty-one patients clinically suspected of Alzheimer's disease were retrospectively included from the Copenhagen Memory Clinic. As part of the clinical work-up all patients had a standard diagnostic program examination including MRI and ancillary investigations with 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. An incremental study design was used to evaluate the clinical impact of the biomarkers. First, the diagnostic evaluation was based on the standard diagnostic program, then the diagnostic evaluation was revised after addition of either cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers or 2-[18F]FDG-PET. At each diagnostic evaluation, two blinded dementia specialists made a consensus decision on diagnosis, prediction of disease course, and change in patient management. Confidence in the decision was measured on a visual analogue scale (0-100). After 6 months, the diagnostic evaluation was performed with addition of the other biomarker. A clinical follow-up after 12 months was used as reference for diagnosis and disease course. RESULTS: The two biomarkers had a similar clinical value across all diagnosis when added individually to the standard diagnostic program. However, for the correctly diagnosed patient with Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a significantly higher impact on diagnostic confidence (mean scores±SD: 88±11 vs. 82±11, p = 0.046) and a significant reduction in the need for ancillary investigations (23 vs. 18 patients, p = 0.049) compared to 2-[18F]FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: The two biomarkers had similar clinical impact on diagnosis, but cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a more significant value in corroborating the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease compared to 2-[18F]FDG-PET.
BACKGROUND: The two biomarkers 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are both recommended to support the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. However, there is a lack of knowledge for the comparison of the two biomarkers in a routine clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical impact of 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers on diagnosis, prognosis, and patient management in patients suspected of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Eighty-one patients clinically suspected of Alzheimer's disease were retrospectively included from the Copenhagen Memory Clinic. As part of the clinical work-up all patients had a standard diagnostic program examination including MRI and ancillary investigations with 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. An incremental study design was used to evaluate the clinical impact of the biomarkers. First, the diagnostic evaluation was based on the standard diagnostic program, then the diagnostic evaluation was revised after addition of either cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers or 2-[18F]FDG-PET. At each diagnostic evaluation, two blinded dementia specialists made a consensus decision on diagnosis, prediction of disease course, and change in patient management. Confidence in the decision was measured on a visual analogue scale (0-100). After 6 months, the diagnostic evaluation was performed with addition of the other biomarker. A clinical follow-up after 12 months was used as reference for diagnosis and disease course. RESULTS: The two biomarkers had a similar clinical value across all diagnosis when added individually to the standard diagnostic program. However, for the correctly diagnosed patient with Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a significantly higher impact on diagnostic confidence (mean scores±SD: 88±11 vs. 82±11, p = 0.046) and a significant reduction in the need for ancillary investigations (23 vs. 18 patients, p = 0.049) compared to 2-[18F]FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: The two biomarkers had similar clinical impact on diagnosis, but cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a more significant value in corroborating the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease compared to 2-[18F]FDG-PET.
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Niels D Prins; Yolande A L Pijnenburg; Afina W Lemstra; Wiesje M van der Flier; Sofie F Adriaanse; Albert D Windhorst; Ron L H Handels; Claire A G Wolfs; Pauline Aalten; Frans R J Verhey; Marcel M Verbeek; Mark A van Buchem; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Philip Scheltens; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: S M Landau; D Harvey; C M Madison; E M Reiman; N L Foster; P S Aisen; R C Petersen; L M Shaw; J Q Trojanowski; C R Jack; M W Weiner; W J Jagust Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: M I Kester; A E van der Vlies; M A Blankenstein; Y A L Pijnenburg; E J van Elk; P Scheltens; W M van der Flier Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ian G McKeith; Bradley F Boeve; Dennis W Dickson; Glenda Halliday; John-Paul Taylor; Daniel Weintraub; Dag Aarsland; James Galvin; Johannes Attems; Clive G Ballard; Ashley Bayston; Thomas G Beach; Frédéric Blanc; Nicolaas Bohnen; Laura Bonanni; Jose Bras; Patrik Brundin; David Burn; Alice Chen-Plotkin; John E Duda; Omar El-Agnaf; Howard Feldman; Tanis J Ferman; Dominic Ffytche; Hiroshige Fujishiro; Douglas Galasko; Jennifer G Goldman; Stephen N Gomperts; Neill R Graff-Radford; Lawrence S Honig; Alex Iranzo; Kejal Kantarci; Daniel Kaufer; Walter Kukull; Virginia M Y Lee; James B Leverenz; Simon Lewis; Carol Lippa; Angela Lunde; Mario Masellis; Eliezer Masliah; Pamela McLean; Brit Mollenhauer; Thomas J Montine; Emilio Moreno; Etsuro Mori; Melissa Murray; John T O'Brien; Sotoshi Orimo; Ronald B Postuma; Shankar Ramaswamy; Owen A Ross; David P Salmon; Andrew Singleton; Angela Taylor; Alan Thomas; Pietro Tiraboschi; Jon B Toledo; John Q Trojanowski; Debby Tsuang; Zuzana Walker; Masahito Yamada; Kenji Kosaka Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Julie Ottoy; Ellis Niemantsverdriet; Jeroen Verhaeghe; Ellen De Roeck; Hanne Struyfs; Charisse Somers; Leonie Wyffels; Sarah Ceyssens; Sara Van Mossevelde; Tobi Van den Bossche; Christine Van Broeckhoven; Annemie Ribbens; Maria Bjerke; Sigrid Stroobants; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Steven Staelens Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Maciej Dulewicz; Agnieszka Kulczyńska-Przybik; Piotr Mroczko; Johannes Kornhuber; Piotr Lewczuk; Barbara Mroczko Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 6.208