Principal component analysis of FDG PET in amnestic MCI
- 356 Downloads
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the combined accuracy of episodic memory performance and 18F-FDG PET in identifying patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) converting to Alzheimer’s disease (AD), aMCI non-converters, and controls.
Thirty-three patients with aMCI and 15 controls (CTR) were followed up for a mean of 21 months. Eleven patients developed AD (MCI/AD) and 22 remained with aMCI (MCI/MCI). 18F-FDG PET volumetric regions of interest underwent principal component analysis (PCA) that identified 12 principal components (PC), expressed by coarse component scores (CCS). Discriminant analysis was performed using the significant PCs and episodic memory scores.
PCA highlighted relative hypometabolism in PC5, including bilateral posterior cingulate and left temporal pole, and in PC7, including the bilateral orbitofrontal cortex, both in MCI/MCI and MCI/AD vs CTR. PC5 itself plus PC12, including the left lateral frontal cortex (LFC: BAs 44, 45, 46, 47), were significantly different between MCI/AD and MCI/MCI. By a three-group discriminant analysis, CTR were more accurately identified by PET-CCS + delayed recall score (100%), MCI/MCI by PET-CCS + either immediate or delayed recall scores (91%), while MCI/AD was identified by PET-CCS alone (82%). PET increased by 25% the correct allocations achieved by memory scores, while memory scores increased by 15% the correct allocations achieved by PET.
Combining memory performance and 18F-FDG PET yielded a higher accuracy than each single tool in identifying CTR and MCI/MCI. The PC containing bilateral posterior cingulate and left temporal pole was the hallmark of MCI/MCI patients, while the PC including the left LFC was the hallmark of conversion to AD.
Keywords18F-FDG PET Episodic memory Mild cognitive impairment Alzheimer’s disease
This study complies with the current Italian laws and received ethical approval.
We thank Dr. Giampiero Villavecchia for supervising PET acquisition and Dr. Alessandra Piccini for performing ApoE evaluation.
- 28.Spinnler H, Tognoni G. Standardizzazione e taratura Italiana di test neuropsicologici. Ital J Neurol Sci 1987;6(Suppl. 8):1–120.Google Scholar
- 31.Amodio P, Wenin H, Del Piccolo F, Mapelli D, Montagnese S, Pellegrini A, et al. Variability of trail making test, symbol digit test and line trait test in normal people. A normative study taking into account age-dependent decline and sociobiological variables. Aging Clin Exp Res 2002;14:117–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Bartenstein P, Asenbaum S, Catafau A, Halldin C, Pilowski L, Pupi A, et al. European Association of Nuclear Medicine procedure guidelines for brain imaging using [18F]FDG. Eur J Nucl Med 2002;29:BP43–BP48.Google Scholar
- 41.Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis in health care research: a practical guide. London: Sage; 2003.Google Scholar
- 43.Pagani M, Salmaso D, Rodriguez G, Nardo D, Larsson SA, Nobili F. Principal component analysis in mild and moderate Alzheimer’s Disease. Psychiatry Res: Neuroimaging; in press.Google Scholar
- 45.Scarmeas N, Habeck CG, Zarahn E, Anderson KE, Park A, Hilton J, et al. Covariance PET patterns in early Alzheimer’s disease and subjects with cognitive impairment but no dementia: utility in group discrimination and correlations with functional performance. NeuroImage 2004;23:35–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Salmon E, Kerrouche N, Perani D, Lekeu F, Holthoff V, Beuthien-Baumann B, et al. On the multivariate nature of brain metabolic impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2007; July 23; epub ahead of print.Google Scholar