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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |