TABLE 1

F-18 Beta-Amyloid PET Radiopharmaceuticals Compared to C-11 PiB

Ligand compared with C-11 PiBSubjectsCorrelation of binding between ligandsDiagnostic performance
Florbetapir [55]12 AD patients, 14 cognitively normal control subjectsComposite cortical binding correlation r = 0.78, P < .001Group discrimination florbetapir area under the curve = 0.90 vs PiB = 1.0.
Florbetapir [56]24 MCI subjects, 8 healthy control subjectsComposite cortical binding correlation ρ = 0.95, P < .001, slope = 0.6097% classification agreement using derived cut points
Flutemetamol [48]20 AD patients, 20 MCI subjectsComposite cortical binding correlation r = 0.905, slope = 0.99100% concordance of individual subject visual scan categorization between ligands
Florbetaben [57]10 AD patients, 10 healthy control subjectsComposite cortical binding correlation r = 0.97, P < .0001, slope = 0.71100% concordance of individual subject visual scan categorization between ligands
NAV4694 [53]7 AD patients, 3 patients with frontotemporal dementia, 10 MCI subjects, 25 healthy control subjectsComposite cortical binding correlation r = 0.99, P < .0001, slope = 0.95100% concordance of individual subject visual scan categorization between ligands

  • Abbreviations: PiB, Pittsburgh compound B; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; MCI, mild cognitive impairment.