Create Account | Sign In: Author or Forum

 
 
News  |  Journals  |  Conferences  |  Blogs  |  Articles  |  Forums  |  Twitter    
 

 Headlines:

 

Category: Family Medicine | Geriatrics | Internal Medicine | Neurology | Radiology | Journal

Back to Journal Articles

PiB-/FDG-PET Helpful in Differentiation of Dementia

Last Updated: November 30, 2011.

 

Similar accuracy for PiB-/FDG-PET in discriminating Alzheimer's, frontotemporal lobar degeneration

Share |

Comments: (0)

Tell-a-Friend

 

  Related
 
Photon emission tomography (PET) with amyloid ligand Pittsburgh compound B (PiB-PET) has similar accuracy as PET with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) for differentiating Alzheimer's disease (AD) from frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), according to a study published online Nov. 30 in Neurology.

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDay News) -- Photon emission tomography (PET) with amyloid ligand Pittsburgh compound B (PiB-PET) has similar accuracy as PET with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) for differentiating Alzheimer's disease (AD) from frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), according to a study published online Nov. 30 in Neurology.

Gil D. Rabinovici, M.D., from the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues compared the diagnostic performance of PiB-PET and FDG-PET in differentiating between AD and FTLD (62 snd 45 patients, respectively). Using a quantitative threshold derived from 25 controls, two visual raters, blinded to clinical diagnosis, quantitatively classified PiB scans as positive or negative. FDG scans were quantitatively classified based on the region of lowest metabolism relative to controls, and were visually rated as consistent with AD or FTLD.

The investigators found that for AD, PiB visual reads had higher sensitivity than FDG visual reads (between-rater average: 89.5 versus 77.5 percent) and similar specificity (83 versus 84 percent). Quantitative classification of scans revealed higher sensitivity with PiB versus FDG (89 versus 73 percent), and higher specificity with FDG versus PiB (98 versus 83 percent). PiB and FDG had similar areas under the curve on receiver operating characteristic analysis. Interrater agreement, and agreement between visual and quantitative classification was higher for PiB than FDG. In patients with known histology, PiB and FDG had overall classification accuracy (two visual and one quantitative classification per patient) of 97 percent in 12 patients and 87 percent in 10 patients.

"PiB and FDG showed similar accuracy in discriminating AD and FTLD," the authors write.

Several authors disclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical and health care industries. One author may accrue revenue from patents pertaining to diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

Abstract
Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)
Editorial (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2011 HealthDay. All rights reserved.


Previous: 3-D MRI Differentiates Benign, Malignant Lesions Accurately Next: Metal, Ceramics on Par With Traditional Hip Implants

Reader comments on this article are listed below. Review our comments policy.


Submit your opinion:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

advertisement.gif (61x7 -- 0 bytes)
 

Are you a Doctor, Pharmacist, PA or a Nurse?

Join the Doctors Lounge online medical community

  • Editorial activities: Publish, peer review, edit online articles.

  • Ask a Doctor Teams: Respond to patient questions and discuss challenging presentations with other members.

Doctors Lounge Membership Application

 
     

 advertisement.gif (61x7 -- 0 bytes)

 

 

Useful Sites
MediLexicon
  Tools & Services: Follow DoctorsLounge on Twitter Follow us on Twitter | RSS News | Newsletter | Contact us
Copyright © 2001-2013
Doctors Lounge.
All rights reserved.

Medical Reference:
Diseases | Symptoms
Drugs | Labs | Procedures
Software | Tutorials

Advertising
Links | Humor
Forum Archive
CME | Conferences

Privacy Statement
Terms & Conditions
Editorial Board
About us | Email

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.