TY - JOUR T1 - Predictive Value of <sup>18</sup>F-Florbetapir and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET for Conversion from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer Dementia JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO - J Nucl Med SP - 597 LP - 603 DO - 10.2967/jnumed.119.230797 VL - 61 IS - 4 AU - Ganna Blazhenets AU - Yilong Ma AU - Arnd Sörensen AU - Florian Schiller AU - Gerta Rücker AU - David Eidelberg AU - Lars Frings AU - Philipp T. Meyer Y1 - 2020/04/01 UR - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/61/4/597.abstract N2 - The present study examined the predictive values of amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and nonimaging predictors (alone and in combination) for development of Alzheimer dementia (AD) in a large population of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: The study included 319 patients with MCI from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. In a derivation dataset (n = 159), the following Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed, each adjusted for age and sex: amyloid PET using 18F-florbetapir (pattern expression score of an amyloid-β AD conversion–related pattern, constructed by principle-components analysis); 18F-FDG PET (pattern expression score of a previously defined 18F-FDG–based AD conversion–related pattern, constructed by principle-components analysis); nonimaging (functional activities questionnaire, apolipoprotein E, and mini-mental state examination score); 18F-FDG PET + amyloid PET; amyloid PET + nonimaging; 18F-FDG PET + nonimaging; and amyloid PET + 18F-FDG PET + nonimaging. In a second step, the results of Cox regressions were applied to a validation dataset (n = 160) to stratify subjects according to the predicted conversion risk. Results: On the basis of the independent validation dataset, the 18F-FDG PET model yielded a significantly higher predictive value than the amyloid PET model. However, both were inferior to the nonimaging model and were significantly improved by the addition of nonimaging variables. The best prediction accuracy was reached by combining 18F-FDG PET, amyloid PET, and nonimaging variables. The combined model yielded 5-y free-of-conversion rates of 100%, 64%, and 24% for the low-, medium- and high-risk groups, respectively. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET, amyloid PET, and nonimaging variables represent complementary predictors of conversion from MCI to AD. Especially in combination, they enable an accurate stratification of patients according to their conversion risks, which is of great interest for patient care and clinical trials. ER -