Title |
Diagnostic effectiveness of quantitative [18F]flutemetamol PET imaging for detection of fibrillar amyloid β using cortical biopsy histopathology as the standard of truth in subjects with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus
|
---|---|
Published in |
Acta Neuropathologica Communications, April 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/2051-5960-2-46 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ville Leinonen, Juha O Rinne, Dean F Wong, David A Wolk, John Q Trojanowski, Paul F Sherwin, Adrian Smith, Kerstin Heurling, Mandy Su, Igor D Grachev |
Abstract |
PET imaging of amyloid-β (Aβ) in vivo holds promise for aiding in earlier diagnosis and intervention in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment. AD-like Aβ pathology is a common comorbidity in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). Fifty patients with iNPH needing ventriculo-peritoneal shunting or intracranial pressure monitoring underwent [18F]flutemetamol PET before (N = 28) or after (N = 22) surgery. Cortical uptake of [18F]flutemetamol was assessed visually by blinded reviewers, and also quantitatively via standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) in specific neocortical regions in relation to either cerebellum or pons reference region: the cerebral cortex of (prospective studies) or surrounding (retrospective studies) the biopsy site, the contralateral homolog, and a calculated composite brain measure. Aβ pathology in the biopsy specimen (standard of truth [SoT]) was measured using Bielschowsky silver and thioflavin S plaque scores, percentage area of grey matter positive for monoclonal antibody to Aβ (4G8), and overall pathology impression. We set out to find (1) which pair(s) of PET SUVR and pathology SoT endpoints matched best, (2) whether quantitative measures of [18F]flutemetamol PET were better for predicting the pathology outcome than blinded image examination (BIE), and (3) whether there was a better match between PET image findings in retrospective vs. prospective studies. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
Denmark | 1 | 1% |
Spain | 1 | 1% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 67 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 13 | 18% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
Other | 20 | 28% |
Unknown | 7 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 42% |
Neuroscience | 10 | 14% |
Psychology | 5 | 7% |
Engineering | 4 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
Other | 10 | 14% |
Unknown | 10 | 14% |