JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ng, S.
Right arrow Articles by Rowe, C. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ng, S.
Right arrow Articles by Rowe, C. C.

Visual Assessment Versus Quantitative Assessment of 11C-PIB PET and 18F-FDG PET for Detection of Alzheimer's Disease

Steven Ng1, Victor L. Villemagne1–3,, Sam Berlangieri1, Sze-Ting Lee1, Martin Cherk1, Sylvia J. Gong1, Uwe Ackermann1, Tim Saunder1, Henri Tochon-Danguy1, Gareth Jones1, Clare Smith1, Graeme O'Keefe1, Colin L. Masters2,3 and Christopher C. Rowe1

1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre for PET, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; 2 Department of Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; and 3 The Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria, Parkville, Victoria, Australia


Figure 1
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.  11C-PIB PET images show white matter uptake of 11C-PIB in HC subject (top) and extensive cortical and subcortical uptake in AD patient (bottom). Note relative sparing of sensorimotor and occipital cortex in AD patient.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.  SPM analysis of AD vs. HC subjects. Results are superimposed on transverse T1-weighted MRI brain templates at level of caudate nucleus (left) and at level of posterior cingulate cortex (right). Highlighted areas represent brain regions where AD had significantly higher 11C-PIB uptake than HC. Five regions (indicated by arrows) are clearly identified (height threshold, uncorrected P = 0.01; voxel extension, 125).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.  Box plot of 11C-PIB mrDVR of HC and AD shows median value, quartiles, outliers (*), and mean ({diamondsuit}). Mean mrDVR (HC) = 1.19 ± 0.17 vs. mean mrDVR (AD) = 2.02 ± 0.23 (P < 0.01; Cohen's effect size = 3.87 indicates nonoverlap of 97% in 2 distributions).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.  Box plot of 18F-FDG mrSUVR of HC and AD shows median value, quartiles, outliers (*), and mean ({diamondsuit}). Mean mrSUVR (HC) = 1.10 ± 0.09 vs. mean mrSUVR (AD) = 0.91 ± 0.15 (P < 0.01; Cohen's effect size = 1.53 indicates nonoverlap of 71% in 2 distributions).

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.