Skip to main content

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

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

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 ± 11a 1 ± 14 19 ± 18a 16 ± 16a 6 ± 15 6 ± 13 38 ± 10a 22 ± 16a
Increase in diagnostic confidence (%) 109 (99%) 17 (50%) 6 (100%) 18 (82%) 6 (75%) 7 (64%) 9 (100%) 11 (100%)
  1. 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
  2. aIncreased diagnostic confidence after PET, P < 0.05
  3. 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