Table 3.
Impact of [18F]flutemetamol PET on patient management according to clinical diagnosis prior to PET
| Pre-PET etiology | AD (n = 145) |
FTD (n = 28) |
OD (n = 19) |
NN (n = 20) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET result | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative |
| n | 111 | 34 | 6 | 22 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 11 |
| AD medication | 39 (35%)a | 1 (3%) | 3 (50%)a | 0 (0%) | 1 (13%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (67%)a | 1 (9%) |
| Care | 12 (11%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (17%) | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (44%) | 3 (27%) |
| Ancillary investigations | 0 (0%) | 13 (38%)b | 1 (17%) | 3 (14%) | 1 (13%) | 2 (18%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (18%) |
Data are presented as n (%). Differences between impact of positive and negative PET results were assessed using χ2 tests
aPositive PET > negative PET, P < 0.05
bNegative PET > positive PET, P < 0.05
PET positron emission tomography, AD Alzheimer’s disease dementia, FTD frontotemporal dementia, OD other dementia diagnosis, NN non-neurodegenerative diagnosis