4.3 Article

Diagnostic performance of regional cerebral blood flow images derived from dynamic PIB scans in Alzheimer's disease

期刊

EJNMMI RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s13550-019-0528-3

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; PIB; Relative cerebral blood flow; PALZ

资金

  1. European Union [764458]
  2. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [764458] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundIn clinical practice, visual assessment of glucose metabolism images is often used for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) through 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scans. However, visual assessment of the characteristic AD hypometabolic pattern relies on the expertise of the reader. Therefore, user-independent pipelines are preferred to evaluate the images and to classify the subjects. Moreover, glucose consumption is highly correlated with cerebral perfusion. Regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) images can be derived from dynamic C-11-labelled Pittsburgh Compound B PET scans, which are also used for the assessment of the deposition of amyloid-beta plaques on the brain, a fundamental characteristic of AD. The aim of this study was to explore whether these rCBF PIB images could be used for diagnostic purposes through the PMOD Alzheimer's Discrimination Tool.ResultsBoth tracer relative cerebral flow (R-1) and early PIB (ePIB) (20-130s) uptake presented a good correlation when compared to FDG standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), while ePIB (1-8min) showed a worse correlation. All receiver operating characteristic curves exhibited a similar shape, with high area under the curve values, and no statistically significant differences were found between curves. However, R-1 and ePIB (1-8min) had the highest sensitivity, while FDG SUVR had the highest specificity.ConclusionrCBF images were suggested to be a good surrogate for FDG scans for diagnostic purposes considering an adjusted threshold value.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据