Vol.64

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.63

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.62

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.61

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.60

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.59

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.58

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.57

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.56

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.55

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.54

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.53

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.52

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.51

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.50

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.49

• No.1
• No.2/3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.48

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

• Vol.47 to 1
  (Members Only)

• HOME
• Vol.57 No.9
• CLINICA NEUROL, 57: 479−484, 2017
• Vol.57 No.9 contents

Review

Current and future prospects of nuclear medicine in dementia

Kengo Ito, M.D., Ph.D.¹⁾²⁾³⁾, Yoshiki Inui, M.D., Ph.D.¹⁾, Tsuyoshi Kizawa, M.D., Ph.D.¹⁾, Yasuyuki Kimura, M.D., Ph.D.¹⁾²⁾ and Takashi Kato, M.D., Ph.D.¹⁾²⁾

¹⁾Department of Radiology, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology
²⁾Department of Clinical and Experimental Neuroimaging, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology
³⁾Innovation Center for Clinical Research, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology

In clinical diagnostic imaging of Alzheimer's disease (AD), MRI and nuclear medicine studies such as cerebral blood flow SPECT are positioned as biomarkers expressing pathological conditions. With understanding its usefulness and limitations, it is important to conduct appropriate application and to utilize the correct evaluation of the result in clinical practice. Although FDG-PET and amyloid PET are still not covered for dementia by health insurance, they are extremely useful for differential diagnosis as well as early diagnosis of AD. As image biomarkers, they may have complementary implications. In addition, tau PET under development not only realizes more accurate evaluation of AD but also is expected to be applied in dementia other than AD. In the future, image biomarkers are indispensable for patient selection (early diagnosis) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or earlier stages and for judging the therapeutic effect of interventions in cases when early intervention for AD.
Full Text of this Article in Japanese PDF (763K)

(CLINICA NEUROL, 57: 479−484, 2017)
key words: Alzheimer's disease, SPECT, PET, amyloid, tau

(Received: 10-Feb-17)