Purpose: We examined the literature to elucidate the role of 18F-sodium fluoride (NaF)-PET in atherosclerosis.Methods: Following a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library included articles underwent subjective quality assessment with categories low, medium, and high. Of 2811 records, 1780 remained after removal of duplicates. Screening by title and abstract left 41 potentially eligible full-text articles, of which 8 (about the aortic valve (n= 1), PET/MRI feasibility (n= 1), aortic aneurysms (n= 1), or quantification methodology (n= 5)) were dismissed, leaving 33 published 2010–2012 (n= 6), 2013–2015 (n= 11), and 2016–2018 (n= 16) for analysis.Results: They focused on coronary (n= 8), carotid (n= 7), and femoral arteries (n= 1), thoracic aorta (n= 1), and infrarenal aorta (n= 1). The remaining 15 studies examined more than one arterial segment. The literature was heterogeneous: few studies were designed to investigate atherosclerosis, 13 were retrospective, 9 applied both FDG and NaF as tracers, 24 NaF only. Subjective quality was low in one, medium in 13, and high in 19 studies. The literature indicates that NaF is a very specific tracer that mimics active arterial wall microcalcification, which is positively associated with cardiovascular risk. Arterial NaF uptake often presents before CT-calcification, tends to decrease with increasing density of CT-calcification, and appears, rather than FDG-avid foci, to progress to CT-calcification. It is mainly surface localized, increases with age with a wide scatter but without an obvious sex difference. NaF-avid microcalcification can occur in fatty streaks, but the degree of progression to CT-calcification is unknown. It remains unknown whether medical therapy influences microcalcification. The literature held no therapeutic or randomized controlled trials.Conclusion: The literature was heterogeneous and with few clear cut messages. NaF-PET is a new approach to detect and quantify microcalcification in early-stage atherosclerosis. NaF uptake correlates with cardiovascular risk factors and appears to be a good measure of the body’s atherosclerotic burden, potentially suited also for assessment of anti-atherosclerotic therapy.

Purpose The Region of Southern Denmark (RSD), covering 1.2 of Denmark’s 5.6 million inhabitants, established a task force to (1) retrieve literature evidence for the clinical use of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and provide consequent recommendations and further to (2) compare the actual use of PET/CT in the RSD with these recommendations. This article summarizes the results. Methods A Work Group appointed a professional Subgroup which made Clinician Groups conduct literature reviews on six selected cancers responsible for 5,768 (62.6 %) of 9,213 PET/CT scans in the RSD in 2012. Rapid Evidence Assessment was applied, using the methodology of systematic reviews with predefined limitations to search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English/Danish/Swedish/Norwegian since 2002. PICO questions were defined, data recorded and quality appraised and rated with regard to strength and evidence level. Consequent recommendations for applications of PET/CT were established. The actual use of PET/CT was compared with these, where grades A and B indicated “established” and “useful” and grades C and D “potentially useful” and “non-recommendable” indications, respectively. Results Of 11,729 citations, 1,729 were considered for review, and 204 were included. The evidence suggested usefulness of PET/CT in lung, lymphoma, melanoma, head and neck, and colorectal cancers, whereas evidence was sparse in gynaecological cancers. The agreement between actual use of PET/CT and literature-based recommendations was high in the first five mentioned cancers in that 96.2 % of scans were made for grade A or B indications versus only 22.2 % in gynaecological cancers. Conclusion Evidence-based usefulness was reported in five of six selected cancers; evidence was sparse in the sixth, gynaecological cancers. Actual use of PET/CT agreed well with recommendations.

The amyloid cascade hypothesis for Alzheimer’s disease is still alive, although heavily challenged. Effective anti-amyloid immunotherapy would confirm the hypothesis’ claim that the protein amyloid-beta is the cause of the disease. Two antibodies, aducanumab and lecanemab, have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, while a third, donanemab, is under review. The main argument for the FDA approvals is a presumed therapy-induced removal of cerebral amyloid deposits. Lecanemab and donanemab are also thought to cause some statistical delay in the determination of cognitive decline. However, clinical efficacy that is less than with conventional treatment, selection of amyloid-positive trial patients with non-specific amyloid-PET imaging, and uncertain therapy-induced removal of cerebral amyloids in clinical trials cast doubt on this anti-Alzheimer’s antibody therapy and hence on the amyloid hypothesis, calling for a more thorough investigation of the negative impact of this type of therapy on the brain.