Neurology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow Correspondence:
Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Correspondence are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jagust, W.
Right arrow Articles by DeCarli, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jagust, W.
Right arrow Articles by DeCarli, C.
Related Collections
Right arrow PET
Right arrow All Cognitive Disorders/Dementia
Right arrow Alzheimer's disease
Right arrow Assessment of cognitive disorders/dementia
NEUROLOGY 2007;69:871-877
© 2007 American Academy of Neurology

What does fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging add to a clinical diagnosis of dementia?

W. Jagust, MD, B. Reed, PhD, D. Mungas, PhD, W. Ellis, MD and C. DeCarli, MD

From the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and School of Public Health (W.J.), University of California, Berkeley; Department of Neurology (B.R., D.M., C.D.) and Department of Pathology (W.E.), University of California, Davis.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. William Jagust, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, 132 Barker Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3190 jagust{at}berkeley.edu

Background: Few studies have compared the accuracy of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET to the accuracy of clinical and pathologic diagnosis in dementia patients.

Methods: Forty-four individuals with dementia, cognitive impairment, or normal cognitive function underwent clinical initial evaluation (IE) and PET scanning and were followed up for approximately 4 years until a final evaluation (FE) and 5 years until death and autopsy. Clinical, pathologic, and imaging diagnoses were categorized as Alzheimer disease (AD) or not AD.

Results: Sensitivity of the IE for the pathologic diagnosis of AD was 0.76, and specificity was 0.58; PET had values of 0.84 and 0.74, and FE had values of 0.88 and 0.63. Positive predictive values for IE, PET, and FE were 0.70, 0.81, and 0.76. Negative predictive values were 0.65, 0.78, and 0.80. The diagnosis of AD was associated with a 70% probability of detecting AD pathology; with a positive PET scan this increased to 84%, and with a negative PET scan this decreased to 31%. A diagnosis of not AD at IE was associated with a 35% probability of AD pathology, increasing to 70% with a positive PET scan.

Conclusions: As a diagnostic tool, PET is superior to a baseline clinical evaluation and similar to an evaluation performed 4 years later. Although the addition of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET to a clinical diagnosis provides useful information that can affect the likelihood of detecting Alzheimer disease pathology, the value of this technique in the current clinical environment with limited therapeutic options is likely to be modest.

Supplemental data at www.neurology.org

Supported by NIH grants AG10129 and AG12435.

Disclosure: Dr. William Jagust has served as a consultant to GE Healthcare. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Received January 4, 2007. Accepted in final form March 27, 2007.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.