SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

<sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET-CT pattern in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Neuroimage Clin · 2018-02-28

DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.02.031PMID: 29876274

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundIdiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is an important and treatable cause of neurologic impairment. Diagnosis is complicated due to symptoms overlapping with other age related disorders. The pathophysiology underlying iNPH is not well understood. We explored FDG-PET abnormalities in iNPH patients in order to determine if FDG-PET may serve as a biomarker to differentiate iNPH from common neurodegenerative disorders.MethodsWe retrospectively compared 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging patterns from seven iNPH patients (mean age 74 ± 6 years) to age and sex matched controls, as well as patients diagnosed with clinical Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD), Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) and Parkinson's Disease Dementia (PDD), and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). Partial volume corrected and uncorrected images were reviewed separately.ResultsPatients with iNPH, when compared to controls, AD, DLB/PDD, and bvFTD, had significant regional hypometabolism in the dorsal striatum, involving the caudate and putamen bilaterally. These results remained highly significant after partial volume correction.ConclusionsIn this study, we report a FDG-PET pattern of hypometabolism in iNPH involving the caudate and putamen with preserved cortical metabolism. This pattern may differentiate iNPH from degenerative diseases and has the potential to serve as a biomarker for iNPH in future studies. These findings also further our understanding of the pathophysiology underlying the iNPH clinical presentation.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.