Gjerum L, Andersen BB, Bruun M, Simonsen AH, Henriksen OM, Law I, Hasselbalch SG, Frederiksen KS. Comparison of the clinical impact of 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients suspected of Alzheimer's disease.
PLoS One 2021;
16:e0248413. [PMID:
33711065 PMCID:
PMC7954298 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248413]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
The two biomarkers 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are both recommended to support the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. However, there is a lack of knowledge for the comparison of the two biomarkers in a routine clinical setting.
Objective
The aim was to compare the clinical impact of 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers on diagnosis, prognosis, and patient management in patients suspected of Alzheimer’s disease.
Methods
Eighty-one patients clinically suspected of Alzheimer’s disease were retrospectively included from the Copenhagen Memory Clinic. As part of the clinical work-up all patients had a standard diagnostic program examination including MRI and ancillary investigations with 2-[18F]FDG-PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. An incremental study design was used to evaluate the clinical impact of the biomarkers. First, the diagnostic evaluation was based on the standard diagnostic program, then the diagnostic evaluation was revised after addition of either cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers or 2-[18F]FDG-PET. At each diagnostic evaluation, two blinded dementia specialists made a consensus decision on diagnosis, prediction of disease course, and change in patient management. Confidence in the decision was measured on a visual analogue scale (0–100). After 6 months, the diagnostic evaluation was performed with addition of the other biomarker. A clinical follow-up after 12 months was used as reference for diagnosis and disease course.
Results
The two biomarkers had a similar clinical value across all diagnosis when added individually to the standard diagnostic program. However, for the correctly diagnosed patient with Alzheimer’s disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a significantly higher impact on diagnostic confidence (mean scores±SD: 88±11 vs. 82±11, p = 0.046) and a significant reduction in the need for ancillary investigations (23 vs. 18 patients, p = 0.049) compared to 2-[18F]FDG-PET.
Conclusion
The two biomarkers had similar clinical impact on diagnosis, but cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers had a more significant value in corroborating the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease compared to 2-[18F]FDG-PET.
Collapse