Diagnostic impact of [18F]flutemetamol PET in early-onset dementia

Table 2 Impact of [¹⁸F]flutemetamol PET on clinical diagnosis according to clinical diagnosis prior to PET

Pre-PET etiology	AD (n = 144)		FTD (n = 28)		OD (n = 19)		NN (n = 20)
PET result	Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative
n	110	34	6	22	8	11	9	11
Change in diagnosis	0 (0%)	26 (76%)	4 (67%)	0 (0%)	2 (25%)	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	0 (0%)
Changed diagnosis after PET		12 NN 7 FTD 3 DLB 2 CBD 1 VaD 1 CTE	4 AD		1 DLB 1 AD		9 AD
Pre-PET diagnostic confidence (%)	72 ± 11	68 ± 11	66 ± 12	67 ± 14	72 ± 14	70 ± 11	58 ± 8	57 ± 7
Post-PET diagnostic confidence (%)	98 ± 4	70 ± 16	84 ± 17	83 ± 14	78 ± 13	76 ± 14	96 ± 5	79 ± 14
Δ Diagnostic confidence	25 ± 11^a	1 ± 14	19 ± 18^a	16 ± 16^a	6 ± 15	6 ± 13	38 ± 10^a	22 ± 16^a
Increase in diagnostic confidence (%)	109 (99%)	17 (50%)	6 (100%)	18 (82%)	6 (75%)	7 (64%)	9 (100%)	11 (100%)

Data are presented as mean ± SD or n (%). Differences between pre-PET and post-PET diagnostic confidence were assessed using paired-sample t tests and presented as Δ diagnostic confidence
^aIncreased diagnostic confidence after PET, P < 0.05
PET positron emission tomography, AD Alzheimer’s disease dementia, FTD frontotemporal dementia, OD other dementia diagnosis, NN non-neurodegenerative diagnosis, VaD vascular dementia DLB dementia with Lewy bodies, CBD corticobasal degeneration, CTE chronic traumatic encephalopathy

ISSN: 1758-9193