Related resources
Full-text held externally
Search for item elsewhere
University researcher(s)
Academic department(s)
Molecular imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: visual assessment of [11C]PIB and [18F]FDDNP PET images
Tolboom, N; van der Flier, W M; Boverhoff, J; Yaqub, M; Wattjes, M P; Raijmakers, P G; Barkhof, F; Scheltens, P; Herholz, K; Lammertsma, A A; van Berckel, B N
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(8):882-4.
Access to files
Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Full-text is available externally using the following links:
Full-text held externally
Abstract
Objective To evaluate visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP PET images as potential supportive diagnostic markers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods Twenty-one AD patients and 20 controls were included. Parametric [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP global binding potential (BP(ND)) images were visually rated as 'AD' or 'normal.' Data were compared with ratings of [(18)F]FDG PET images and MRI-derived medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores. Inter-rater agreement and agreement with clinical diagnosis were assessed for all imaging modalities. In addition, cut-off values for quantitative global [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP BP(ND) were determined. Visual ratings were compared with dichotomised quantitative values. Results Agreement between readers was excellent for [(11)C]PIB, [(18)F]FDDNP and MTA (Cohen kappa kappa>/=0.85) and moderate for [(18)F]FDG (kappa=0.56). The highest sensitivity was found for [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDG (both 1.0). The highest specificity was found for MTA (0.90) and [(11)C]PIB (0.85). [(18)F]FDDNP had the lowest sensitivity and specificity (0.67 and 0.53, respectively). The cut-off for quantitative [(11)C]PIB BP(ND) was 0.54 (sensitivity and specificity both 0.95) and for [(18)F]FDDNP BP(ND) 0.07 (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.73). Agreement between quantitative analyses and visual ratings was excellent for [(11)C]PIB (kappa=0.85) and fair for [(18)F]FDDNP (kappa=0.40). Conclusion Visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB images was straightforward and accurate, showing promise as a supportive diagnostic marker for AD. Moreover, [(11)C]PIB showed the best combination of sensitivity and specificity. Visual assessment of [(18)F]FDDNP images was insufficient. The quantitative analysis of [(18)F]FDDNP data showed a considerably higher diagnostic value than the visual analysis.
Bibliographic metadata
- Related website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=20543188
- Tolboom, Nelleke van der Flier, Wiesje M Boverhoff, Jolanda Yaqub, Maqsood Wattjes, Mike P Raijmakers, Pieter G Barkhof, Frederik Scheltens, Philip Herholz, Karl Lammertsma, Adriaan A van Berckel, Bart N M England Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;81(8):882-4. Epub 2010 Jun 11.