Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:58:21.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there a preference for PET or SPECT brain imaging in diagnosing dementia? The views of people with dementia, carers, and healthy controls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2015

Claire Bamford ,
Kirsty Olsen ,
Chris Davison ,
Nicky Barnett ,
Jim Lloyd ,
David Williams ,
Michael Firbank ,
Helen Mason ,
Cam Donaldson  and
John O’Brien
Claire Bamford*
Affiliation:
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK
Kirsty Olsen
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroscience, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK
Chris Davison
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroscience, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK
Nicky Barnett
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroscience, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK
Jim Lloyd
Affiliation:
Regional Medical Physics Department, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK
David Williams
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroscience, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK
Michael Firbank
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroscience, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK
Helen Mason
Affiliation:
Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK
Cam Donaldson
Affiliation:
Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK
John O’Brien
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroscience, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 189, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SP, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Claire Bamford, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle Biomedical Research Building, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)191 208 7047; Fax: +44 (0)191 208 6043. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) brain imaging are widely used as diagnostic tools for suspected dementia but no studies have directly compared participant views of the two procedures. We used a range of methods to explore preferences for PET and SPECT.

Methods:

Patients and controls (and accompanying carers) completed questionnaires immediately after undergoing PET and SPECT brain scans. Pulse rate data were collected during each scan. Scan attributes were prioritized using a card sorting exercise; carers and controls additionally answered willingness to pay (WTP) questions.

Results:

Few differences were found either between the scans or groups of participants, although carers marginally preferred SPECT. Diagnostic accuracy was prioritized over other scan characteristics. Mean heart rate during both scans was lower than baseline heart rate measured at home (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Most participants viewed PET and SPECT scans as roughly equivalent and did not have a preference for either scan. Carer preference for SPECT is likely to reflect their desire to be with the patient (routine practice for SPECT but not for PET), suggesting that they should be able to accompany vulnerable patients throughout imaging procedures wherever possible. Pulse rate data indicated that brain imaging was no more stressful than a home visit (HV) from a researcher. The data do not support the anecdotal view that PET is a more burdensome procedure and the use of PET or SPECT scans in dementia should be based on diagnostic accuracy of the technique.

Keywords

PETSPECTdiagnosisAlzheimer’s diseasedementia with Lewy bodiespatient preferencewillingness to pay
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 123 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, R., Thompson, C. and Mannion, R. (2006). Q methodology in health economics. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 11, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colloby, S. and O’Brien, J. (2004). Functional imaging in Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry & Neurology, 17, 158–163.Google Scholar
Davison, C. M. and O’Brien, J. T. (2014). A comparison of FDG-PET and blood flow SPECT in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias: a systematic review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 29, 551–561.Google Scholar
Donaldson, C. and Shackley, P. (1997). Does “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Social Science & Medicine, 44, 699–707.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.Google Scholar
Forrest, J. (2000). Using Q methodology to assess chronic pain in elderly cognitively intact and Alzheimer's patients. Operant Subjectivity, 24, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, S. et al. (2012). Recommendations of the 4th Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD4). Canadian Geriatrics Journal, 15, 120–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herholz, K. (2011). Perfusion SPECT and FDG-PET. International Psychogeriatrics, 23 (Suppl. 2), S25–S31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hort, J. et al. (2010). EFNS guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Alzheimer's disease. European Journal of Neurology, 17, 1236–1248.Google Scholar
Ishii, K. and Minoshima, S. (2005). PET is better than perfusion SPECT for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease – for. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging, 32, 1463–1465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishikawa, H., Roter, D. L., Yamazaki, Y., Hashimoto, H. and Yano, E. (2006). Patients’ perceptions of visit companions’ helpfulness during Japanese geriatric medical visits. Patient Education and Counseling, 61, 80–86.Google Scholar
Liang, W. et al. (2003). Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research & Treatment, 79, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKeith, I. et al. (2005). Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: third report of the DLB Consortium. Neurology, 65, 1863–1872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D. and Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of department of health and human services task force on Alzheimer's disease. Neurology, 34, 939–944.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., Gray, C. M., van Achterberg, T., Wyke, S. and Cox, S. (2010). The effectiveness of the Talking Mats framework in helping people with dementia to express their views on well-being. Dementia, 9, 454–472.Google Scholar
NICE/SCIE (2006). Dementia: supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence and Social Care Institute for Excellence.Google Scholar
O’Brien, J. T. et al. (2014). 18F-FDG PET and perfusion SPECT in the diagnosis of Alzheimer and Lewy Body Dementias. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 55, 1959–1965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singleton, M., Griffiths, C., Morrison, G. and Soanes, T. (2003). Dose constraints for comforters and carers. Research Report 155. Sudbury: Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
Sparrow, P., Plein, S., Jones, T. R., Thorley, P. J., Hale, C. and Sivananthan, M. U. (2004). Tolerance of MRI vs. SPECT myocardial perfusion studies–a patient survey. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 19, 410–416.Google Scholar
Wollman, D. E., Beeri, M. S., Weinberger, M., Cheng, H., Silverman, J. M. and Prohovnik, I. (2004). Tolerance of MRI procedures by the oldest old. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 22, 1299–1304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed