RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: We disclosed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results in individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and studied patient experiences and outcomes over a 6-month period. METHODS: Fifty-seven participants from the Subjective Cognitive Impairment Cohort (SCIENCe) (66 ± 8 years, 21 [37%] F, Mini-Mental State Examination 29 ± 1, 15 [26%] amyloid positive [A+]) completed questionnaires 1 week prior (T0), 1 day after (T1), and 6 months after amyloid PET disclosure (T2). Questionnaires addressed patient-reported experiences and outcomes. RESULTS: Independent of amyloid status, participants were satisfied with the consultation (scale 1-10; 7.9 ± 1.7) and information provided (scale 1-4; T1: 3.3 ± 0.9, T2: 3.2 ± 0.8). After 6 months, A+ participants reported more information needs (45% vs. 12%, p = 0.02). Independent of amyloid status, decision regret (scale 1-5; A+: 1.5 ± 0.9, A-: 1.4 ± 0.6, p = 0.53) and negative emotions (negative affect, uncertainty, anxiety) were low (all p > 0.15 and Pinteraction > 0.60). DISCUSSION: Participants with SCD valued amyloid PET disclosure positively, regardless of amyloid status. The need for information after 6 months, which was stronger in A+ individuals, underscores the importance of follow-up. HIGHLIGHTS: Participants with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) positively valued amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) disclosure. Participants with SCD experienced low levels of decision regret. We did not observe an increase in negative emotions. After 6 months, amyloid-positive individuals wanted more information.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Accurate image-derived input function (IDIF) from highly sensitive large axial field of view (LAFOV) PET/CT scanners could avoid the need of invasive blood sampling for kinetic modelling. The aim is to validate the use of IDIF for two kinds of tracers, 3 different IDIF locations and 9 different reconstruction settings. METHODS: Eight [18F]FDG and 10 [18F]DPA-714 scans were acquired respectively during 70 and 60 min on the Vision Quadra PET/CT system. PET images were reconstructed using various reconstruction settings. IDIFs were taken from ascending aorta (AA), descending aorta (DA), and left ventricular cavity (LV). The calibration factor (CF) extracted from the comparison between the IDIFs and the manual blood samples as reference was used for IDIFs accuracy and precision assessment. To illustrate the effect of various calibrated-IDIFs on Patlak linearization for [18F]FDG and Logan linearization for [18F]DPA-714, the same target time-activity curves were applied for each calibrated-IDIF. RESULTS: For [18F]FDG, the accuracy and precision of the IDIFs were high (mean CF ≥ 0.82, SD ≤ 0.06). Compared to the striatum influx (Ki) extracted using calibrated AA IDIF with the updated European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research Ltd. standard reconstruction (EARL2), Ki mean differences were < 2% using the other calibrated IDIFs. For [18F]DPA714, high accuracy of the IDIFs was observed (mean CF ≥ 0.86) except using absolute scatter correction, DA and LV (respectively mean CF = 0.68, 0.47 and 0.44). However, the precision of the AA IDIFs was low (SD ≥ 0.10). Compared to the distribution volume (VT) in a frontal region obtained using calibrated continuous arterial sampler input function as reference, VT mean differences were small using calibrated AA IDIFs (for example VT mean difference = -5.3% using EARL2), but higher using calibrated DA and LV IDIFs (respectively + 12.5% and + 19.1%). CONCLUSIONS: For [18F]FDG, IDIF do not need calibration against manual blood samples. For [18F]DPA-714, AA IDIF can replace continuous arterial sampling for simplified kinetic quantification but only with calibration against arterial blood samples. The accuracy and precision of IDIF from LAFOV PET/CT system depend on tracer, reconstruction settings and IDIF VOI locations, warranting careful optimization.
RESUMEN
Objective: It is unclear how self-reported severe fatigue and difficulty concentrating after SARS-CoV-2 infection relate to objective neuropsychological functioning. The study aimed to compare neuropsychological functioning between individuals with and without these persistent subjective complaints. Method: Individuals with and without persistent severe fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) fatigue ≥ 35) and difficulty concentrating (CIS concentration ≥ 18) at least 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Neuropsychological assessment was performed on overall cognitive functioning, attention, processing speed, executive functioning, memory, visuo-construction, and language (18 tests). T-scores -1.5 SD below population normative data (T ≤ 35) were classified as "impaired". Results: 230 participants were included in the study, of whom 22 were excluded from the analysis due to invalid performance. Of the participants included in the analysis, 111 reported persistent complaints of severe fatigue and difficulty concentrating and 97 did not. Median age was 54 years, 59% (n = 126) were female, and participants were assessed a median of 23 months after first infection (IQR: 16-28). With bivariate logistic regression, individuals with persistent complaints had an increased likelihood of slower information processing speed performance on the Stroop word reading (OR = 2.45, 95%CI = 1.02-5.84) compared to those without persistent complaints. Demographic or clinical covariates (e.g. hospitalization) did not influence this association. With linear regression techniques, persistent complaints were associated with lower t-scores on the D2 CP, TMT B, and TMT B|A. There were no differences in performance on the other neuropsychological tests. Conclusions: Individuals with subjective severe fatigue and difficulty concentrating after COVID-19 do not typically demonstrate cognitive impairment on extensive neuropsychological testing.