We have located links that may give you full text access.
Quantitative comparative analysis of amyloid PET images using three radiopharmaceuticals.
Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2023 Februrary 8
OBJECTIVE: Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) with F-18 florbetaben (FBB), F-18 flutemetamol (FMM), and F-18 florapronol (FPN) is being used clinically for the evaluation of dementia. These radiopharmaceuticals are commonly used to evaluate the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain, but there are structural differences between them. We investigated whether there are any differences in the imaging characteristics.
METHODS: A total of 605 subjects were enrolled retrospectively in this study, including healthy subjects (HS) and patients with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease. Participants underwent amyloid PET imaging using one of the three radiopharmaceuticals. The PET images were analyzed visually and semi-quantitatively using a standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR). In addition, we calculated and compared the cut-off SUVR of the representative regions for each radiopharmaceutical that can distinguish between positive and negative scans.
RESULTS: In the negative images of the HS group, the contrast between the white matter and the gray matter was high in the FMM PET images, while striatal uptake was relatively higher in the FPN PET images. The SUVR showed significant differences across the radiopharmaceuticals in all areas except the temporal lobe, but the range of differences was relatively small. Accuracy levels for the global cut-off SUVR to discriminate between positive and negative images were highest in FMM PET, with a value of 0.989. FBB PET also showed a high value of 0.978, while FPN PET showed a relatively low value of 0.901.
CONCLUSIONS: Negative amyloid PET images using the three radiopharmaceuticals showed visually and quantitatively similar imaging characteristics except in the striatum. Binary classification using the cut-off of the global cortex showed high accuracy overall, although there were some differences between the three PET images.
METHODS: A total of 605 subjects were enrolled retrospectively in this study, including healthy subjects (HS) and patients with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease. Participants underwent amyloid PET imaging using one of the three radiopharmaceuticals. The PET images were analyzed visually and semi-quantitatively using a standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR). In addition, we calculated and compared the cut-off SUVR of the representative regions for each radiopharmaceutical that can distinguish between positive and negative scans.
RESULTS: In the negative images of the HS group, the contrast between the white matter and the gray matter was high in the FMM PET images, while striatal uptake was relatively higher in the FPN PET images. The SUVR showed significant differences across the radiopharmaceuticals in all areas except the temporal lobe, but the range of differences was relatively small. Accuracy levels for the global cut-off SUVR to discriminate between positive and negative images were highest in FMM PET, with a value of 0.989. FBB PET also showed a high value of 0.978, while FPN PET showed a relatively low value of 0.901.
CONCLUSIONS: Negative amyloid PET images using the three radiopharmaceuticals showed visually and quantitatively similar imaging characteristics except in the striatum. Binary classification using the cut-off of the global cortex showed high accuracy overall, although there were some differences between the three PET images.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app