Institute of Neurology, University College London, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom.
Department of Neuroradiology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom.
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Sep;94:16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.014. Epub 2017 Jul 20.
By 2050 it is projected that 115 million people worldwide will have Alzheimer's Disease (AD) [1]. Recent attempts have been made to redefine the diagnostic criteria of AD to include markers of neurodegeneration - measurable by FDG-PET - and markers of amyloid accumulation - measurable by amyloid-PET.
A systematic review of the literature was performed to examine the current diagnostic use of amyloid and FDG PET. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Database were searched for relevant papers RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This search resulted in twenty-nine papers on amyloid imaging, twenty-three papers on FDG-PET and eight papers which utilized both techniques. Both modalities are considered in turn with regards to their diagnostic accuracy, their role in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and prognostication, their use in the differential diagnosis of AD and their clinical application. As evidenced from the current literature, both amyloid and FDG-PET meet criteria for suitable biomarkers for the diagnosis of AD. They both indicate pathophysiological processes, albeit at different stages of the Alzheimer's process, and are distinct from normal patterns of aging.
Both techniques have been shown to detect AD with high sensitivity and specificity compared to other neurodegenerative processes and cognitively normal age-matched individuals. However, future studies with standardised, uniform thresholds and a lengthier longitudinal follow-up need to be conducted to allow us to make surer conclusions about the future role of PET in clinical practice. In addition, comparison with post-mortem diagnosis, rather than clinical diagnosis with its acknowledged flaws, would result in more powerful statistical outcomes - which is becoming increasingly important given that several disease-modifying AD drugs are now in phase 3 trials.
据预测,到 2050 年,全球将有 1.15 亿人患有阿尔茨海默病(AD)[1]。最近有人试图重新定义 AD 的诊断标准,将神经退行性变的标志物(可通过 FDG-PET 测量)和淀粉样蛋白积累的标志物(可通过淀粉样蛋白-PET 测量)纳入其中。
对文献进行系统回顾,以检查淀粉样蛋白和 FDG-PET 的当前诊断用途。在 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库以及 Cochrane 数据库中搜索相关论文。
该搜索产生了 29 篇关于淀粉样蛋白成像的论文,23 篇关于 FDG-PET 的论文,以及 8 篇同时使用这两种技术的论文。依次考虑这两种方式,评估其诊断准确性、在轻度认知障碍(MCI)和预后中的作用、在 AD 鉴别诊断中的应用以及临床应用。根据当前文献,淀粉样蛋白和 FDG-PET 均符合 AD 诊断合适生物标志物的标准。它们都指示了病理生理过程,尽管处于阿尔茨海默病过程的不同阶段,与正常的衰老模式不同。
与其他神经退行性病变过程和认知正常的年龄匹配个体相比,这两种技术都显示出对 AD 的高灵敏度和特异性。然而,需要进行具有标准化、统一阈值和更长纵向随访的未来研究,以使我们能够更确定地得出关于 PET 在临床实践中的未来作用的结论。此外,与临床诊断(其公认存在缺陷)相比,与死后诊断进行比较将产生更强大的统计结果——这一点变得越来越重要,因为现在有几种可改变 AD 进程的药物正在进行 3 期试验。