-
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. · Aug 2010
Molecular imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: visual assessment of [11C]PIB and [18F]FDDNP PET images.
- Nelleke Tolboom, Wiesje M van der Flier, Jolanda Boverhoff, Maqsood Yaqub, Mike P Wattjes, Pieter G Raijmakers, Frederik Barkhof, Philip Scheltens, Karl Herholz, Adriaan A Lammertsma, and Bart N M van Berckel.
- Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.tolboom@vumc.nl
- J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 2010 Aug 1; 81 (8): 882-4.
ObjectiveTo evaluate visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]FDDNP PET images as potential supportive diagnostic markers for Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsTwenty-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.ResultsAgreement between readers was excellent for [(11)C]PIB, [(18)F]FDDNP and MTA (Cohen kappa kappa> or =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).ConclusionVisual 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.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.