Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleClinical Investigations

Assessing Mild Cognitive Impairment with Amyloid and Dopamine Terminal Molecular Imaging

Roger L. Albin, James F. Burke, Robert A. Koeppe, Bruno Giordani, Sid Gilman and Kirk A. Frey
Journal of Nuclear Medicine June 2013, 54 (6) 887-893; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.112599
Roger L. Albin
1Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
2Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VAAAHS, Ann Arbor, Michigan
3Neurology Service, VAAAHS, Ann Arbor, Michigan
4Michigan Alzheimer Disease Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James F. Burke
1Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
3Neurology Service, VAAAHS, Ann Arbor, Michigan
5Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert A. Koeppe
6Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruno Giordani
4Michigan Alzheimer Disease Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
7Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sid Gilman
1Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kirk A. Frey
1Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
6Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

We evaluated PET-based classification of neurodegenerative pathology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: Our study was a cross-sectional and prospective evaluation of a cohort of 27 MCI subjects drawn from a university-based cognitive disorders clinic. We compared expert clinical consensus classification of MCI at entry and possible dementia at follow-up with molecular imaging–based classification using 11C-dihydotetrabenazine PET measurement of striatal dopamine terminal integrity and 11C-Pittsburgh compound B (11C-PiB) PET measurement of cerebral amyloid burden. Results: Eleven subjects were initially classified clinically as amnestic MCI, 7 as multidomain MCI, and 9 as nonamnestic MCI. At a mean follow-up of 3 y, 18 subjects converted to dementia. PET imaging evidence of significant cerebral amyloid deposition or nigrostriatal denervation was a strong predictor of conversion to dementia. There was only moderate concordance between expert clinical classifications and PET-based classifications of dementia subtypes. Conclusion: Combined PET molecular imaging of cerebral amyloid burden and striatal dopamine terminal integrity may be useful for identifying subjects at high risk for progression to dementia and in defining neurochemically differentiated subsets of MCI subjects.

  • dementia
  • Alzheimer disease
  • Lewy body dementia
  • frontotemporal dementia

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is recognized as a substantial risk factor for subsequent development of dementia (1). There is considerable interest in MCI subjects as suitable target populations for clinical trials aimed at delaying dementia onset. MCI, however, is a heterogeneous entity caused by all major neurodegenerative pathologies and vascular etiologies (1–7). Some MCI subjects do not have a progressive course, and others may improve over time (8–12). Clinical trials enrolling MCI subjects face the same challenge as trials involving subjects with early dementias: the strong likelihood of enrolling heterogeneous subject populations, plus the problem of enrolling subjects who will not go on to develop dementia. The development of PET ligands identifying characteristic pathologic features of different neurodegenerative dementias offers the possibility of a minimally invasive subclassification of MCI subjects based on well-characterized correlates of pathology (13,14). Because potential treatments to prevent or delay onset of dementia are likely to target specific pathologic processes, the identification of subject groups with specific underlying pathologic features is likely to improve the statistical power of clinical trials.

There are 3 primary causes of neurodegenerative dementias—Lewy body dementia (LBD), Alzheimer disease (AD), and frontotemporal dementias (FTDs). LBD is characterized by substantial loss of nigrostriatal dopaminergic terminals, together with cerebrocortical Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites. AD and a significant percentage of LBD subjects exhibit neuritic plaques composed of fibrillar amyloid precursor protein fragments (Aβ amyloid). FTDs generally lack these features and are characterized by deposition of a variety of protein species including τ-protein and TAR-DNA-binding protein-43.

Studies correlating amyloid imaging results with the postmortem assessments of amyloid burden indicate a good correlation between imaging and pathologic measures of amyloid burden (15). Prior postmortem studies evaluating nigrostriatal degeneration in pathologically defined AD and LBD samples indicated a high specificity for substantial loss of nigrostriatal dopaminergic terminals as a marker for LBD (16,17). These results, and others, indicate that molecular imaging with amyloid and nigrostriatal dopamine terminal ligands may identify characteristic pathologic features of neurodegenerative dementias.

We previously reported PET imaging–based classification of early, mild dementias with amyloid and dopamine terminal molecular imaging. We demonstrated only moderate (Cohen’s κ = 0.39) concordance between molecular imaging–based classifications and expert consensus–based clinical classifications (18). To clarify the potential role of this imaging-based approach in the subclassification of MCI and to evaluate the prediction of progression to dementia, we report the results of combined PET imaging with the nigrostriatal dopamine terminal marker 11C-dihydotetrabenazine and the Aβ amyloid marker 11C-Pittsburgh compound B (11C-PiB) in a cohort of MCI subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

Twenty-seven subjects with primary symptoms of cognitive impairment were recruited from the University of Michigan Cognitive Disorders Clinic. This was a convenience sample of subjects meeting criteria for MCI and satisfying the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (18). Included subjects were over the age of 40, had cognitive symptoms for longer than 9 mo, and were capable of completing neuropsychologic testing and research neuroimaging. Subjects with a modified Hachinski scale score greater than 4 or meeting NINDS-AIREN (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Association Internationale pour la Recherché et l'Enseignement en Neurosciences) criteria suggesting vascular dementia were excluded. Subjects were excluded also if a finding suggested the following possible nonneurodegenerative causes of cognitive decline: clinically significant abnormality on screening blood tests including vitamin B12 level and thyroid function tests, a Geriatric Depression Score greater than 6, a history of seizure disorder, a history of cranial radiation therapy, a history of mental retardation, a recent history of focal brain injury, focal neurologic deficits that developed simultaneously with cognitive complaints, or the presence of a systemic or medical illness that would confound the diagnosis of a degenerative dementia. The Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan (IRBMED) approved this investigation, and all participants signed an IRBMED-approved written informed consent.

Clinical Classification

Clinical classification was performed as described previously (18). Clinical evaluations included history and neurologic examination, brain MR imaging, laboratory evaluation to exclude potential confounders, and a standardized neuropsychologic evaluation. The neuropsychologic evaluation administered to all subjects included the measures from the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center Unified Dataset, consisting of the Mini-Mental State Examination, Boston Naming Test, Digit Span Forwards and Backwards, Trail Making Test (parts A and B), Logical Memory and Logical Memory Delayed Recall, and Semantic Fluency (Animal Naming). Caregivers completed the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Clinical, structural imaging, laboratory, and neuropsychologic data for each subject were abstracted into a standard form by 1 of the investigators. A panel of experienced clinicians masked to the PET neuroimaging reviewed these data and assigned a classification to each subject with reference to recommended clinical criteria for MCI and MCI subtypes (amnestic MCI [aMCI], multidomain MCI [mdMCI], and nonamnestic MCI [naMCI]) based on clinical and neuropsychologic criteria (19). If there was discrepancy between raters, consensus was reached by discussion.

Subjects’ neurologic and neuropsychologic examinations were repeated in 2- to 4-y intervals from the initial consensus evaluation. Clinical classification was repeated using the same consensus procedure and the same raters, who were masked to the initial clinical consensus evaluations. Consensus assessment included evaluation of progression to dementia. Subjects with persistent MCI were classified as described above. Subjects converting to dementia were then classified as 1 of the 3 major forms of neurodegenerative dementia using standard criteria for AD, LBD, and FTD (20–22).

PET Imaging

Subjects underwent 11C-PiB and 11C-dihydotetrabenazine PET imaging on a Siemens ECAT HR+ camera operated in 3-dimensional mode (septa retracted), and they were scanned within 2–3 wk of initial evaluation. The 2 radiotracer scans were usually performed on the same half day, with at least 2 h between scans to allow for physical decay of the first tracer before the second scan. 11C-PiB was administered as an intravenous bolus of 45% of the total mass dosage over 30 s, followed by constant infusion of the remaining 55% of the dose over the 80-min study duration (23). 11C-PiB PET images were acquired as a dynamic series of 17 scan frames over a total of 80 min as follows: 4 × 30 s, 3 × 1 min, 2 × 2.5 min, 2 × 5 min, and 6 × 10 min. Parametric 11C-PiB distribution volume ratio (DVR) images were computed by averaging the last 4 scan frames (40–80 min) normalized to the mean value in the cerebellar hemisphere cortical gray matter. (+)-11C-dihydotetrabenazine was administered intravenously as a bolus containing 55% of the total mass dose over 30 s, followed by continuous infusion of the remaining 45% of the dose over the 60-min study duration (24). A dynamic series of PET images was acquired over 60 min: 4 × 30 s, 3 × 1 min, 2 × 2.5 min, 2 × 5 min, and 4 × 10 min. Parametric 11C-dihydotetrabenazine DVR images were computed by averaging the last 3 scan frames (30–60 min) and normalized to the mean value in the occipital cerebral cortex. This bolus-plus-infusion approach leads to steady-state or equilibrium conditions, and the tissue concentration ratio yields DVR directly.

PET Neuroimaging Classifications

PET image classifications were made by an expert familiar with the biodistributions of the tracers in normal and relevant pathologic conditions. Following the procedure used in our prior study and the phase III study of 123I-FP-CIT SPECT for diagnosis of LBD, the assessments were designed to reproduce conditions that would likely be obtained if routine clinical use of these measures was implemented (18,25). Parametric 11C-PiB and 11C-dihydotetrabenazine DVR image sets for each subject were stripped of identifiers and then classified without knowledge of clinical data. DVR images from all subjects were displayed with a DVR scale maximum of 3.0. Image-based classifications were assigned on the basis of combined 11C-PiB and 11C-dihydotetrabenazine results in each subject, providing both ligand-binding pattern and ligand-binding magnitude information. Subjects were classified as abnormal if visual assessment of 11C-dihydotetrabenazine DVR images indicated marked reduction of striatal 11C-dihydotetrabenazine binding in either hemisphere with visual assessment of the DVR images. Cerebral 11C-PiB retention was classified as abnormal when the frontal lobe cerebral cortical DVR exceeded subjacent frontal white matter DVR with visual inspection of the DVR images. The visual assessment of cortical 11C-PiB retention is known to exhibit accuracy comparable to quantitative analyses of 11C-PiB binding (26,27). In our prior study, qualitative visual classification was as effective as classification based on regional parametric analysis (18). Subjects with markedly reduced striatal 11C-dihydotetrabenazine binding were classified as LBD. In our present series, some LBD subjects had 11C-PiB deposition, whereas others were 11C-PiB–negative. Individuals with normal 11C-dihydotetrabenazine binding and abnormally increased 11C-PiB deposition were classified as AD. Individuals with normal 11C-PiB and 11C-dihydotetrabenazine scan results were classified as FTD. Representative images of AD, LBD, and FTD classifications were published previously as Figure 1 in our prior study (18).

Statistical Analyses

Data analysis was performed with Stata (version 12; Stata Corp.). Demographics and other characteristics of the subjects were summarized as frequencies and percentages for categoric variables and as mean and SD for continuous variables. Differences between groups on demographic and neuropsychologic variables were assessed using χ2 tests for categoric variables, t tests or 1-way ANOVA for normally distributed variables, and Mann–Whitney-Wilcoxon or Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum tests for nonnormally distributed variables. κ-statistics were calculated to assess interassessment agreement.

RESULTS

We evaluated 27 subjects whom we were able to follow over a mean interval of approximately 3 y (Table 1). At study entry, 11 subjects were clinically classified as aMCI, 7 as mdMCI, and 9 as naMCI. The MCI classification subgroups were similar in terms of demographics, clinical features, and neuropsychologic features (Table 1). Two thirds of subjects converted to dementia (18/27) on follow-up consensus clinical assessments. For each MCI classification subgroup, approximately two-thirds converted to dementia (Table 2). With imaging-based classification, most subjects were classified as AD-like pathology (18/27), with minorities classified as LDB-like pathology (2/27) or FTD-like pathology (7/27) (Table 2). Most of the subjects with an imaging abnormality (positive 11C-PiB PET or 11C-dihydotetrabenazine PET result) converted to dementia (16/20), whereas a minority of those without imaging abnormalities converted to dementia (2/7; Table 2; odds ratio, 10.0 [95% confidence interval, 1.4–71.9]).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Demographic, Clinical, and Neuropsychologic Features of MCI Subjects

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Results of Subject Follow-up Based on Either Initial Clinical or Initial Image-Based Classifications

Although the numbers of subjects are relatively small, MCI classification subgroup status did not obviously correlate with image-based classification (Table 3). Among subjects, for example, categorized as aMCI, most (9/11) received image-based classifications of AD but a minority (2/11) was categorized as FTD. Similarly, subjects classified as AD by image-based criteria were clinically classified as aMCI (9/18), mdMCI (6/18), and naMCI (3/18).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

MCI Classifications

Using data from the 18 subjects who converted to dementia, we updated our prior analysis comparing PET imaging–based classification and expert clinical consensus classification of mildly demented subjects (Mini-Mental State Examination > 17) (18). Adding this group of MCI subjects converting to dementia to our prior cohort of 75 mildly demented subjects provides a total of 93 subjects for comparison (Table 4). Updated analysis results are similar to prior results. The overall Cohen’s κ was 0.41 (95% confidence interval, 0.26–0.55), and the performance characteristics of expert clinical consensus image–based classification were similar to our previously reported results (Table 5). As with our prior analysis, the greatest source of discrepancy between image-based and clinical classifications was in subjects classified clinically as FTD but whose 11C-PiB PET imaging revealed significant cerebral Aβ amyloid deposition (Table 6).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

Demographic, Clinical, and Neuropsychologic Features of MCI and Demented Subjects

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 5

Performance of Clinical Diagnosis* Versus Image-Based Classification in 93 Subjects

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 6

Comparison of Image-Based and Clinical Consensus Classifications

DISCUSSION

A general problem with disease-modifying clinical trials in demented subjects is that pathology may be so advanced as to substantially reduce or preclude detectable therapeutic effects. MCI subject populations are likely less susceptible to this problem. A further virtue of targeting MCI subjects is that a trial endpoint of conversion to dementia may allow employment of survival analysis methods, increasing trial statistical power, an approach precluded in trial designs with demented subjects. With high risk for conversion to dementia and probable lower intensity of pathology, MCI is an attractive target population for disease-modifying trials. MCI populations, however, include both subjects with underlying progressive illnesses and subjects who will not progress or will actually improve. MCI secondary to dementing disorders, such as early dementia, is a heterogeneous population with several underlying pathologies. Identification of MCI subjects most likely to progress to dementia would increase the statistical power of trials to identify clinically relevant effects. Accurate, pathologically based classification of MCI subjects would facilitate enrollment of more homogeneous subject populations and also increase statistical power in disease-modifying trials.

Amyloid imaging and nigrostriatal dopamine terminal imaging are well validated by postmortem studies as biomarkers for cerebral Aβ amyloid deposition and LBD (16,17,28,29). In our dataset, abnormal 11C-dihydotetrabenazine or 11C-PiB PET results strongly predicted progression to dementia, which is consistent with considerable data from prior amyloid imaging studies of MCI subjects (30–32). Amyloid imaging does not, however, differentiate AD from LDB because many LDB subjects exhibit high amyloid burden (33–35). In addition, LBD subjects without high amyloid burdens will not be identified by amyloid imaging. Our combined molecular imaging approach likely identifies MCI subjects at high risk for progression and may allow relatively specific identification of MCI subjects likely to progress to AD and LBD (18,36,37).

An alternative approach to increasing the likelihood of identifying MCI subjects at high risk for progression to dementia is to use clinically defined MCI subclassifications as markers for increased chance for progression to dementia. aMCI, for example, is proposed as a particularly strong risk factor for AD (38). This approach, however, will still likely result in heterogeneous subject populations. Although our number of MCI subjects is modest, the lack of qualitative association of any MCI subtype with image-based classification is consistent with the heterogeneity of MCI and MCI subtypes. Of the 11 subjects in our study classified clinically as aMCI, 9 were classified by imaging criteria as AD (high 11C-PiB binding and normal 11C-dihydotetrabenazine binding) with 2 (18%) classified as FTD (normal 11C-PiB and 11C-dihydotetrabenazine binding). This result is similar to findings in a phase II trial of bapinuzemab in AD, in which 15% of subjects enrolled with clinically defined mild AD were found subsequently to have normal 11C-PiB PET results (39). Similarly, all forms of clinically defined MCI were represented among our subjects classified as AD by image-based criteria (Table 3).

One drawback of this approach is that both the clinical and the molecular imaging–based classification schemes presume exclusive categories. Combinations of pathology, notably comorbid vascular and neurodegenerative pathologies, are common in large autopsy series of demented subjects. Although conventional, this classification approach inevitably obscures some of the complexities of overlapping pathologies contributing to the clinical features of dementing illnesses. Some FTD cases, for example, notably those associated with τ mutations, exhibit significant parkinsonism and loss of nigrostriatal neurons. In addition, our molecular imaging–based FTD classification is a negative approach, based on absence of 11C-dihydotetrabenazine PET or 11C-PiB PET abnormalities. In the case of demented individuals, for example, this approach could lead to individuals with vascular dementia being classified as FTDs. We attempted to mitigate this problem by excluding subjects with higher Hachinski scores, but misclassification of vascular cognitive impairment as FTD remains a possibility with this approach. Similarly, this negative approach to FTD classification would also lead to subjects without dementia-related pathologies being classified as FTD. This fact highlights the importance of developing new ligands specific for FTD-related pathologies, such as τ-protein or TAR-DNA-binding protein-43 deposition, that would serve as positive biomarkers.

Another limitation of our study is the relatively small sample size. Only 2 subjects converting from MCI to dementia exhibited abnormal striatal 11C-dihydotetrabenazine binding with initial PET imaging. Most of the MCI-to-dementia convertors exhibited abnormal 11C-PiB PET imaging. Demonstrating that this double-PET-scan approach is superior to single imaging with 11C-PiB PET or another imaging modality will require a larger prospective study. One potentially interesting result was that 3 of the 4 subjects classified as converting to LBD with the final consensus clinical evaluation were not classified as LBD on initial imaging. The most likely explanation for discrepant imaging and clinical classifications is imprecision of clinical classification, but another intriguing possibility exists. We previously reported apparently rapid loss of striatal 11C-dihydotetrabenazine binding in a subject with rapid-eye-movement sleep behavior disorder who converted to LBD (40). This prior case experience raises the possibility of apparently rapid declines in striatal dopaminergic innervation in LBD during phases when subjects convert from MCI or other potential precursor states to overt dementia. This finding raises the interesting possibility that dopamine terminal PET or SPECT imaging, although generally thought to be useful in establishing a diagnosis of LBD in individuals in established dementia, may be insensitive in precursor states like MCI. Larger prospective studies are required to address this question.

We previously applied this combined-tracer PET imaging approach to subjects with early, mild dementia. Concordance with expert clinical diagnosis was only moderate, consistent with the results of long-term pathologic follow-up of dementias (41). We extended our prior analysis of concordance between molecular imaging–based and clinical classifications of early dementia by adding the results of final expert clinical consensus and image-based classifications of the 18 MCI subjects who converted to dementia to our prior dataset. With this expanded dataset (93 subjects), we continue to see only moderate concordance (κ = 0.41) between expert clinical consensus and molecular imaging–based classifications. We suspect that discrepancies between imaging and clinical classifications reflect imprecision of clinical classifications, but pathologic correlation is necessary to assess this hypothesis definitively.

This combined-tracer approach may be useful for selecting MCI subjects for inclusion in disease-modifying therapy trials both by selecting populations at high risk for conversion to dementia and by selecting a more homogeneous subject population on the basis of underlying pathologic–neurochemical abnormalities. Alternatively, this approach may be useful in defining more accessible biomarkers in MCI subjects. Other measures, such as 18F-FDG PET and structural MR imaging, have been explored as biomarkers to predict progression from MCI to dementia and for a more accurate classification of MCI or dementias. Significant results are reported with these imaging modalities. Determining the optimal approach for assessing prognosis and classification will require larger prospective studies with pathologic correlation as the ultimate gold standard.

CONCLUSION

Combined PET molecular imaging of cerebral amyloid burden and striatal dopamine terminal integrity may be useful in identifying subjects at high risk for progression to dementia and in defining neurochemically differentiated subsets of MCI subjects.

DISCLOSURE

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734. Roger L. Albin accessed all relevant data for this study and takes responsibility for integrity of data and analysis. The sponsors played no role in data acquisition, analysis, interpretation or manuscript preparation. This study was supported in part by the following: PHS P01 NS15655 and P30 AG08671 and a gift from an anonymous donor.

The authors make the following disclosures:

Roger L. Albin receives research support from NIH and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. He serves on the DSMB of the QE3 trial and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Hereditary Disease Foundation and serves on the Editorial Boards of Neurology, Experimental Neurology, and Neurobiology of Disease.

James F. Burke receives support from a VA advanced fellowship and the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program.

Robert A. Koeppe receives research support from NIH. Dr. Koeppe has served as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and Merck and serves on the board of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

Bruno Giordani receives research support from NIH.

Sid Gilman is chair of DSMB for Bapineuzumab phase III study of AD, Elan & Janssen AI; chair of DSMB for AAB-003 Phase I, Pfizer; and chair of DSMB for ELND005 Phase III, Elan. He receives research support from NINDS (NIH) and is on the scientific advisory boards of Longitude Capital and TPP.

Kirk A. Frey receives research support from USPHS NIH and GE Healthcare, AVID Radiopharma; he serves as consultant to MiMvista, GE Healthcare, Avid Radiopharma (Eli Lilly), and Bayer-Schering Pharma; and has equity (stock) ownership in Bristol-Myers Squibb, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff of the PET center for their assistance. We thank the reviewers for useful criticisms and the JNM staff for careful editing.

Footnotes

  • Published online Apr. 9, 2013.

  • © 2013 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Petersen RC,
    2. Smith GE,
    3. Waring SC,
    4. Ivnik RJ,
    5. Tangalos EG,
    6. Kokmen E
    . Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characteristics and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999;56:303–308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    1. Markesbery WR,
    2. Schmitt FA,
    3. Kryscio RJ,
    4. Davis DG,
    5. Smith CD,
    6. Wekstein DR
    . Neuropathologic substrate of mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2006;63:38–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    1. Bennett DA,
    2. Schneider JA,
    3. Bienias JL,
    4. Evans DA,
    5. Wilson RS
    . Mild cognitive impairment is related to Alzheimer disease pathology and cerebral infarctions. Neurology. 2005;64:834–841.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.
    1. Guillozet AL,
    2. Weintraub S,
    3. Mash DC,
    4. Mesulam MM
    . Neurofibrillary tangles, amyloid, and memory in aging and mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2003;60:729–736.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Petersen RC,
    2. Parisi JE,
    3. Dickson DW,
    4. et al
    . Neuropathologic features of amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2006;63:665–672.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    1. Jicha GA,
    2. Parisi JE,
    3. Dickson DW,
    4. et al
    . Neuropathological outcome of mild cognitive impairment following progression to clinical dementia. Arch Neurol. 2006;63:674–681.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Molano J,
    2. Boeve B,
    3. Ferman T,
    4. et al
    . Mild cognitive impairment associated with limbic and neocortical Lewy body disease: a clinicopathological study. Brain. 2010;133:540–556.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Loewenstein DA,
    2. Acevedo A,
    3. Small BJ,
    4. Agron J,
    5. Crocco E,
    6. Duara R
    . Stability of different subtypes of mild cognitive impairment among the elderly over a 2- to 3-year follow-up period. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2009;27:418–423.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    1. Palmer K,
    2. Bäckman L,
    3. Winblad B,
    4. Fratiglioni L
    . Mild cognitive impairment in the general population: occurrence and progression to Alzheimer disease. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16:603–611.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    1. Mitchell AJ,
    2. Shiri-Feshki M
    . Rate of progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia: meta-analysis of 41 robust inception cohort studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;119:252–265.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Farias ST,
    2. Mungas D,
    3. Reed BR,
    4. Harvey D,
    5. DeCarli C
    . Progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia in clinic- vs community-based cohorts. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1151–1157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Manly JJ,
    2. Tang MX,
    3. Schupf N,
    4. Stern Y,
    5. Vonsattel JP,
    6. Mayeux R
    . Frequency and course of mild cognitive impairment in a multiethnic community. Ann Neurol. 2008;63:494–506.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Klunk WE,
    2. Engler H,
    3. Nordberg A,
    4. et al
    . Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer's disease with Pittsburgh Compound-B. Ann Neurol. 2004;55:306–319.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Koeppe RA,
    2. Gilman S,
    3. Junck L,
    4. Wernette K,
    5. Frey KA
    . Differentiating Alzheimer's disease from dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease with (+)-[11C]dihydrotetrabenazine positron emission tomography. Alzheimers Dement. 2008;4(1, suppl 1):S67–S76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Clark CM,
    2. Schneider JA,
    3. Bedell BJ,
    4. et al
    . Use of florbetapir-PET for imaging beta-amyloid pathology. JAMA. 2011;305:275–283.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Suzuki M,
    2. Desmond TJ,
    3. Albin RL,
    4. Frey KA
    . Striatal monoaminergic terminals in Lewy body and Alzheimer's dementias. Ann Neurol. 2002;51:767–771.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Piggott MA,
    2. Marshall EF,
    3. Thomas N,
    4. et al
    . Striatal dopaminergic markers in dementia with Lewy bodies, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases: rostrocaudal distribution. Brain. 1999;122:1449–1468.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Burke JF,
    2. Albin RL,
    3. Koeppe RA,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of mild dementia with amyloid and dopamine terminal positron emission tomography. Brain. 2011;134:1647–1657.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Winblad B,
    2. Palmer K,
    3. Kivipelto M,
    4. et al
    . Mild cognitive impairment: beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med. 2004;256:240–246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. McKhann G,
    2. Drachman D,
    3. Folstein M,
    4. et al
    . Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services task force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1984;34:939–944.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    1. McKhann GM,
    2. Albert MS,
    3. Grossman M,
    4. et al
    . Clinical and pathological diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia. Arch Neurol. 2001;58:1803–1809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. McKeith IG,
    2. Dickson DW,
    3. Lowe J,
    4. et al
    . Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: third report of the DLB consortium. Neurology. 2005;65:1863–1872.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Koeppe RA,
    2. Frey KA
    . Equilibrium analysis of [11C]PIB studies. Neuroimage. 2008;41:T30.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Bohnen NI,
    2. Albin RL,
    3. Koeppe RA,
    4. et al
    . Positron emission tomography of monoaminergic vesicular binding in aging and Parkinson disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2006;26:1198–1212.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. McKeith I,
    2. O’Brien J,
    3. Walker Z,
    4. et al
    . Sensitivity and specificity of dopamine transporter imaging with 123I-FP-CIT SPECT in dementia with Lewy bodies: a phase III, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:305–313.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Ng S,
    2. Villemagne VL,
    3. Berlangieri S,
    4. et al
    . Visual assessment versus quantitative assessment of 11C-PIB PET and 18F-FDG PET for detection of Alzheimer's disease. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:547–552.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Suotunen T,
    2. Hirvonen J,
    3. Immonen-Räihä P,
    4. et al
    . Visual assessment of [11C]PIB PET in patients with cognitive impairment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1141–1147.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Fodero-Tavoletti MT,
    2. Smith DP,
    3. McLean CA,
    4. et al
    . In vitro characterization of Pittsburgh compound-B binding to Lewy bodies. J Neurosci. 2007;27:10365–10371.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Klunk WE,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Huang GF,
    4. et al
    . The binding of 2-(4-methylaminophenyl)benzothiazole to postmortem brain homogenates is dominated by the amyloid component. J Neurosci. 2003;23:2086–2092.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Wolk DA,
    2. Price JC,
    3. Saxton JA,
    4. et al
    . Amyloid imaging in mild cognitive impairment subtypes. Ann Neurol. 2009;65:557–568.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    1. Okello A,
    2. Koivunen J,
    3. Edison P,
    4. et al
    . Conversion of amyloid positive and negative MCI to AD over 3 years: an 11C-PIB PET study. Neurology. 2009;73:754–760.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    1. Villemagne VL,
    2. Pike KE,
    3. Chételat G,
    4. et al
    . Longitudinal assessment of Aβ and cognition in aging and Alzheimer disease. Ann Neurol. 2011;69:181–192.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Gomperts SN,
    2. Rentz DM,
    3. Moran E,
    4. et al
    . Imaging amyloid deposition in Lewy body diseases. Neurology. 2008;71:903–910.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.
    1. Edison P,
    2. Rowe CC,
    3. Rinne JO,
    4. et al
    . Amyloid load in Parkinson's disease dementia and Lewy body dementia measured with [11C]PIB positron emission tomography. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79:1331–1338.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Foster ER,
    2. Campbell MC,
    3. Burack MA,
    4. et al
    . Amyloid imaging of Lewy body-associated disorders. Mov Disord. 2010;25:2516–2523.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Villemagne VL,
    2. Okamura N,
    3. Pejoska S,
    4. et al
    . Differential diagnosis in Alzheimer's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies via VMAT2 and amyloid imaging. Neurodegener Dis. 2012;10:161–165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Villemagne VL,
    2. Okamura N,
    3. Pejoska S,
    4. et al
    . In vivo assessment of vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 in dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2011;68:905–912.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Petersen RC,
    2. Thomas RG,
    3. Grundman M,
    4. et al
    . Vitamin E and donepezil for treatment of mild cognitive impairment. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2379–2388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Rinne JO,
    2. Brooks DJ,
    3. Rossor MN,
    4. et al
    . 11C-PiB PET assessment of change in fibrillar amyloid-beta load in patients with Alzheimer's disease treated with bapineuzumab: a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose study. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:363–372.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Albin R,
    2. Koeppe R
    . Rapid loss of striatal VMAT2 binding associated with onset of Lewy body dementia. Mov Disord. 2006;21:287–288.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Knopman DS,
    2. DeKosky ST,
    3. Cummings JL,
    4. et al
    . Practice parameter: diagnosis of dementia (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2001;56:1143–1153.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  • Received for publication August 9, 2012.
  • Accepted for publication December 4, 2012.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 54 (6)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 54, Issue 6
June 1, 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessing Mild Cognitive Impairment with Amyloid and Dopamine Terminal Molecular Imaging
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Assessing Mild Cognitive Impairment with Amyloid and Dopamine Terminal Molecular Imaging
Roger L. Albin, James F. Burke, Robert A. Koeppe, Bruno Giordani, Sid Gilman, Kirk A. Frey
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2013, 54 (6) 887-893; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.112599

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Assessing Mild Cognitive Impairment with Amyloid and Dopamine Terminal Molecular Imaging
Roger L. Albin, James F. Burke, Robert A. Koeppe, Bruno Giordani, Sid Gilman, Kirk A. Frey
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2013, 54 (6) 887-893; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.112599
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Diagnostic Performance of 124I-Metaiodobenzylguanidine PET/CT in Patients with Pheochromocytoma
  • Effects of Tracer Uptake Time in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer 18F-FDG PET Radiomics
  • Nuclear Imaging for Classic Fever of Unknown Origin: Meta-Analysis
Show more CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Dementia
  • Alzheimer disease
  • Lewy body dementia
  • frontotemporal dementia
SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire