Cargando…

Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease

BACKGROUND: The two biomarkers 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are both recommended to support the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. However, there is a lack of knowledge for the comparison of the two biomarkers in a routine clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gjerum, Le, Andersen, Birgitte Bo, Bruun, Marie, Simonsen, Anja Hviid, Henriksen, Otto Mølby, Law, Ian, Hasselbalch, Steen Gregers, Frederiksen, Kristian Steen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7954298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33711065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248413
_version_ 1783664050550341632
author Gjerum, Le
Andersen, Birgitte Bo
Bruun, Marie
Simonsen, Anja Hviid
Henriksen, Otto Mølby
Law, Ian
Hasselbalch, Steen Gregers
Frederiksen, Kristian Steen
author_facet Gjerum, Le
Andersen, Birgitte Bo
Bruun, Marie
Simonsen, Anja Hviid
Henriksen, Otto Mølby
Law, Ian
Hasselbalch, Steen Gregers
Frederiksen, Kristian Steen
author_sort Gjerum, Le
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The two biomarkers 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are both recommended to support the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. However, there is a lack of knowledge for the comparison of the two biomarkers in a routine clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers on diagnosis, prognosis, and patient management in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease. METHODS: Eighty-one patients clinically suspected of Alzheimer’s disease were retrospectively included from the Copenhagen Memory Clinic. As part of the clinical work-up all patients had a standard diagnostic program examination including MRI and ancillary investigations with 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. An incremental study design was used to evaluate the clinical impact of the biomarkers. First, the diagnostic evaluation was based on the standard diagnostic program, then the diagnostic evaluation was revised after addition of either cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers or 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET. At each diagnostic evaluation, two blinded dementia specialists made a consensus decision on diagnosis, prediction of disease course, and change in patient management. Confidence in the decision was measured on a visual analogue scale (0–100). After 6 months, the diagnostic evaluation was performed with addition of the other biomarker. A clinical follow-up after 12 months was used as reference for diagnosis and disease course. RESULTS: The two biomarkers had a similar clinical value across all diagnosis when added individually to the standard diagnostic program. However, for the correctly diagnosed patient with Alzheimer’s disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a significantly higher impact on diagnostic confidence (mean scores±SD: 88±11 vs. 82±11, p = 0.046) and a significant reduction in the need for ancillary investigations (23 vs. 18 patients, p = 0.049) compared to 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: The two biomarkers had similar clinical impact on diagnosis, but cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a more significant value in corroborating the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease compared to 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7954298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79542982021-03-22 Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease Gjerum, Le Andersen, Birgitte Bo Bruun, Marie Simonsen, Anja Hviid Henriksen, Otto Mølby Law, Ian Hasselbalch, Steen Gregers Frederiksen, Kristian Steen PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The two biomarkers 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are both recommended to support the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. However, there is a lack of knowledge for the comparison of the two biomarkers in a routine clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers on diagnosis, prognosis, and patient management in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease. METHODS: Eighty-one patients clinically suspected of Alzheimer’s disease were retrospectively included from the Copenhagen Memory Clinic. As part of the clinical work-up all patients had a standard diagnostic program examination including MRI and ancillary investigations with 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. An incremental study design was used to evaluate the clinical impact of the biomarkers. First, the diagnostic evaluation was based on the standard diagnostic program, then the diagnostic evaluation was revised after addition of either cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers or 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET. At each diagnostic evaluation, two blinded dementia specialists made a consensus decision on diagnosis, prediction of disease course, and change in patient management. Confidence in the decision was measured on a visual analogue scale (0–100). After 6 months, the diagnostic evaluation was performed with addition of the other biomarker. A clinical follow-up after 12 months was used as reference for diagnosis and disease course. RESULTS: The two biomarkers had a similar clinical value across all diagnosis when added individually to the standard diagnostic program. However, for the correctly diagnosed patient with Alzheimer’s disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a significantly higher impact on diagnostic confidence (mean scores±SD: 88±11 vs. 82±11, p = 0.046) and a significant reduction in the need for ancillary investigations (23 vs. 18 patients, p = 0.049) compared to 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: The two biomarkers had similar clinical impact on diagnosis, but cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a more significant value in corroborating the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease compared to 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET. Public Library of Science 2021-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7954298/ /pubmed/33711065 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248413 Text en © 2021 Gjerum et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gjerum, Le
Andersen, Birgitte Bo
Bruun, Marie
Simonsen, Anja Hviid
Henriksen, Otto Mølby
Law, Ian
Hasselbalch, Steen Gregers
Frederiksen, Kristian Steen
Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease
title Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease
title_full Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease
title_fullStr Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease
title_short Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease
title_sort comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[(18)f]fdg-pet and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of alzheimer’s disease
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7954298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33711065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248413
work_keys_str_mv AT gjerumle comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease
AT andersenbirgittebo comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease
AT bruunmarie comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease
AT simonsenanjahviid comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease
AT henriksenottomølby comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease
AT lawian comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease
AT hasselbalchsteengregers comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease
AT frederiksenkristiansteen comparisonoftheclinicalimpactof218ffdgpetandcerebrospinalfluidbiomarkersinpatientssuspectedofalzheimersdisease