Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Amyloid PET imaging in clinical practice
Magdalena A Kolanko, Zarni Win, Flavia Loreto, Neva Patel, Christopher Carswell, Anastassia Gontsarova, Richard J Perry, Paresh A Malhotra. Practical neurology, 2020-09-24
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging enables in vivo detection of brain Aβ deposition, one of the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. There is increasing evidence to support its clinical utility, with major studies showing that amyloid PET imaging improves diagnostic accuracy, increases diagnostic certainty and results in therapeutic changes. The Amyloid Imaging Taskforce has developed appropriate use criteria to guide clinicians by predefining certain scenarios where amyloid PET would be justified. This review provides a practical guide on how and when to use amyloid PET, based on the available research and our own experience. We discuss its three main appropriate indications and illustrate these with clinical cases. We stress the importance of a multidisciplinary approach when deciding who might benefit from amyloid PET imaging. Finally, we highlight some practical points and common pitfalls in its interpretation.
Key findings
- There is increasing evidence to support its clinical utility, with major studies showing that amyloid PET imaging improves diagnostic accuracy, increases diagnostic certainty and results in therapeutic changes.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Practical neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32973035) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Kolanko, M. A., Win, Z., Loreto, F., Patel, N., Carswell, C., Gontsarova, A., et al. (2020). Amyloid PET imaging in clinical practice. Practical neurology. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2019-002468
Vancouver
Kolanko MA, Win Z, Loreto F, Patel N, Carswell C, Gontsarova A, et al. Amyloid PET imaging in clinical practice. Practical neurology. 2020. doi:10.1136/practneurol-2019-002468. PMID: 32973035.
BibTeX
@article{kolanko2020-32973035,
author = {Kolanko, Magdalena A and Win, Zarni and Loreto, Flavia and Patel, Neva and Carswell, Christopher and Gontsarova, Anastassia and Perry, Richard J and Malhotra, Paresh A},
title = {{Amyloid PET imaging in clinical practice}},
journal = {Practical neurology},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1136/practneurol-2019-002468},
pmid = {32973035},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2019-002468}
}
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “18f”
319 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 319 tagged studies.