HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lowe, V. J. Articles by Petersen, R. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lowe, V. J. Articles by Petersen, R. C.

Comparison of ¹⁸F-FDG and PiB PET in Cognitive Impairment

¹ Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ² Department of Information Technology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ³ Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ⁴ Department of Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and ⁵ Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 1.  Axial PiB brain image (left) in 72-y-old male subject in study group, with clinical diagnosis of AD, showing PiB accumulation in GM region of cerebellum (arrow). Image on right shows different AD subject with no PiB accumulation in GM region of cerebellum (dashed arrow).

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 2.  Groupwise estimated average ROI-to-cerebellum ratio on PiB PET (numerals 1–4) with 95% nonparametric confidence intervals (gray lines). Average used is pseudomedian, which is defined as median of midpoints of all possible pairs of observations in group. CN = controls; supp. = superior.

View larger version (35K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 3.  Groupwise estimated average ROI-to-pons ratio on 18F-FDG PET (numerals 1–4) with 95% nonparametric confidence intervals (gray lines). Average used is pseudomedian. CN = controls; supp. = superior.

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 4.  Groupwise differences in PiB using 4 approaches. Individual values are superimposed over box plot, indicating median and quartiles. AD subject illustrated in Figure 1 is indicated by a . At top of each panel are Wilcoxon rank sum test P values from all pairwise comparisons. (A) Global cortical PiB-to-cerebellum ratio without PVC. (B) Global cortical PiB-to-cerebellum ratio with PVC. (C) Global cortical PiB scaled by SUV without PVC. (D) Global cortical PiB scaled by SUV with PVC.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 5.  Groupwise differences in 18F-FDG using 4 approaches. Individual values are superimposed over box plot, indicating median and quartiles. AD subject illustrated in Figure 1 is indicated by a . At top of each panel are Wilcoxon rank sum test P values from all pairwise comparisons. (A) Global cortical 18F-FDG-to-pons ratio without PVC. (B) Global cortical 18F-FDG-to-pons ratio with PVC. (C) Global cortical 18F-FDG SUV without PVC. (D) Global cortical 18F-FDG SUV with PVC.

View larger version (71K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 6.  18F-FDG and PiB group mean images for control, naMCI, aMCI, and AD subjects showing better visual separation of groups using PiB. Scaling shown to right using pons and cerebellar normalization, respectively. Regions with activity similar to these regions of normalization color in 1.0 color ranges (green), whereas regions with greater uptake show up in yellow and red. Color scaling is slightly different for 18F-FDG and PiB groups given different range of cortical ratios.