SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     




J Nucl Med. 2011; 52 (Supplement 1):174
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Newberg, A.
Right arrow Articles by Arnold, S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Newberg, A.
Right arrow Articles by Arnold, S.

Neurosciences: Neurology

Neurology II: Aging, Cognition, and Dementia

Comparison of FDG and Florbetapir PET for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease

Andrew Newberg1, Abass Alavi2, Barry Rovner1, Nancy Wintering2, James Huang2 and Steven Arnold2

1 Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, PA 2 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Abstract No. 174

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine how PET imaging with the F-18 amyloid tracer, Florbetapir, compares with FDG when evaluating Alzeimer's disease (AD) patients and controls.

Methods: 19 patients with a clinical diagnosis of AD and 21 elderly controls were evaluated with both Florbetapir and FDG PET scans. Scans were read blindly by two experts and were assessed for the presence of AD. Positive criteria for the Florbetapir scan was the presence of binding in the frontal, temporal, precuneus, and cingulate regions. Positive criteria for FDG PET scans were the classic pattern of temporoparietal hypometabolism compared to the visual cortex, sensorimotor cortex, cerebellum, and subcortical areas. Scans were read as either positive or negative for AD. Also, a visual scoring system was used to assess the degree of hypometabolism or the degree of amyloid binding. A ratio was calculated based upon values in regions expected to be affected by AD and those not expected to be affected and correlated with the mini-mental status exam (MMSE) scores.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity compared to the clinical diagnosis of AD or controls for the Florbetapir scans was 95% and 95% respectively while for the FDG scans was 89% and 86% respectively. FDG significantly correlated with MMSE when both controls and AD patients were compared (r=0.79, p<0.0001) and when AD patients were compared separately (r=0.70, p=0.001). Florbetapir binding significantly correlated with MMSE scores when both controls and AD patients were compared (r=0.62, p<0.001) but not when AD patients were compared separately (r=0.12, p=0.66).

Conclusions: Overall, Florbetapir scans had a higher sensitivity and specificity compared to the FDG scans. Both scans correlated well with cognitive status for the entire cohort, but only the FDG scans correlated with cognitive status when AD patients were evaluated separately. These findings have important implications for the future use of Florbetapir and FDG in AD patients





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Newberg, A.
Right arrow Articles by Arnold, S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Newberg, A.
Right arrow Articles by Arnold, S.