4.2 Article

A Comparison of the Diagnostic Sensitivity of MRI, CBF-SPECT, FDG-PET and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers for Detecting Alzheimer's Disease in a Memory Clinic

期刊

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 285-292

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000320265

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; MRI; CBF-SPECT; FDG-PET; CSF biomarkers; Amyloid beta-protein 1-42; Total tau; Phosphorylated tau

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22790815] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aim: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), cerebral blood flow single photon emission computed tomography (CBF-SPECT), fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are used for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We aimed to reveal the relative sensitivity of these tools in a memory clinic setting. Methods: In 207 patients with probable AD in our memory clinic, medial temporal lobe atrophy on MRI, hypoperfusion/hypometabolism of the parietotemporal lobe and posterior cingulate gyrus in ethylcysteinate dimer-CBF-SPECT/FDG-PET, and abnormalities of CSF amyloid beta-protein 1-42, total tau and phosphorylated tau were evaluated as findings characteristic of AD. Results: The AD findings were observed in 77.4% of all AD patients with MRI, 81.6% with CBF-SPECT, 93.1% with FDG-PET and 94.0% with CSF biomarkers. At the stage of Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) 0.5, CSF biomarkers were the most sensitive (90.0%); at the stage of CDR 1, FDG-PET (96.7%) and CSF biomarkers (95.5%) were highly sensitive. At the stage of CDR 2, all tools showed high positive percentages. Conclusion: The diagnosis of AD was most often supported by CSF biomarkers and FDG-PET at the early stage of dementia (CDR 1) and by CSF biomarkers at the earlier stage (CDR 0.5). Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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