UNLABELLED: (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B ((11)C-PiB) and (18)F-florbetapir amyloid-β (Aβ) PET radioligands have had a substantial impact on Alzheimer disease research. Although there is evidence that both radioligands bind to fibrillar Aβ in the brain, direct comparisons in the same individuals have not been reported. Here, we evaluated PiB and florbetapir in a retrospective convenience sample of cognitively normal older controls, patients with mild cognitive impairment, and patients with Alzheimer disease from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: From the ADNI database, 32 participants were identified who had undergone at least 1 PiB study and subsequently underwent a florbetapir study approximately 1.5 y after the last PiB study. Cortical PiB and florbetapir retention was quantified using several different methods to determine the effect of preprocessing factors (such as smoothing and reference region selection) and image processing pipelines. RESULTS: There was a strong association between PiB and florbetapir cortical retention ratios (Spearman ρ = 0.86-0.95), and these were slightly lower than cortical retention ratios for consecutive PiB scans (Spearman ρ = 0.96-0.98) made approximately 1.1 y apart. Cortical retention ratios for Aβ-positive subjects tended to be higher for PiB than for florbetapir images, yielding slopes for linear regression of florbetapir against PiB of 0.59-0.64. Associations between consecutive PiB scans and between PiB and florbetapir scans remained strong, regardless of processing methods such as smoothing, spatial normalization to a PET template, and use of reference regions. The PiB-florbetapir association was used to interconvert cutoffs for Aβ positivity and negativity between the 2 radioligands, and these cutoffs were highly consistent in their assignment of Aβ status. CONCLUSION: PiB and florbetapir retention ratios were strongly associated in the same individuals, and this relationship was consistent across several data analysis methods, despite scan-rescan intervals of more than a year. Cutoff thresholds for determining positive or negative Aβ status can be reliably transformed from PiB to florbetapir units or vice versa using a population scanned with both radioligands.
UNLABELLED: (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B ((11)C-PiB) and (18)F-florbetapir amyloid-β (Aβ) PET radioligands have had a substantial impact on Alzheimer disease research. Although there is evidence that both radioligands bind to fibrillar Aβ in the brain, direct comparisons in the same individuals have not been reported. Here, we evaluated PiB and florbetapir in a retrospective convenience sample of cognitively normal older controls, patients with mild cognitive impairment, and patients with Alzheimer disease from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: From the ADNI database, 32 participants were identified who had undergone at least 1 PiB study and subsequently underwent a florbetapir study approximately 1.5 y after the last PiB study. Cortical PiB and florbetapir retention was quantified using several different methods to determine the effect of preprocessing factors (such as smoothing and reference region selection) and image processing pipelines. RESULTS: There was a strong association between PiB and florbetapir cortical retention ratios (Spearman ρ = 0.86-0.95), and these were slightly lower than cortical retention ratios for consecutive PiB scans (Spearman ρ = 0.96-0.98) made approximately 1.1 y apart. Cortical retention ratios for Aβ-positive subjects tended to be higher for PiB than for florbetapir images, yielding slopes for linear regression of florbetapir against PiB of 0.59-0.64. Associations between consecutive PiB scans and between PiB and florbetapir scans remained strong, regardless of processing methods such as smoothing, spatial normalization to a PET template, and use of reference regions. The PiB-florbetapir association was used to interconvert cutoffs for Aβ positivity and negativity between the 2 radioligands, and these cutoffs were highly consistent in their assignment of Aβ status. CONCLUSION:PiB and florbetapir retention ratios were strongly associated in the same individuals, and this relationship was consistent across several data analysis methods, despite scan-rescan intervals of more than a year. Cutoff thresholds for determining positive or negative Aβ status can be reliably transformed from PiB to florbetapir units or vice versa using a population scanned with both radioligands.
Authors: Dean F Wong; Paul B Rosenberg; Yun Zhou; Anil Kumar; Vanessa Raymont; Hayden T Ravert; Robert F Dannals; Ayon Nandi; James R Brasić; Weiguo Ye; John Hilton; Constantine Lyketsos; Hank F Kung; Abhinay D Joshi; Daniel M Skovronsky; Michael J Pontecorvo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: E C Mormino; J T Kluth; C M Madison; G D Rabinovici; S L Baker; B L Miller; R A Koeppe; C A Mathis; M W Weiner; W J Jagust Journal: Brain Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Christopher C Rowe; Kathryn A Ellis; Miroslava Rimajova; Pierrick Bourgeat; Kerryn E Pike; Gareth Jones; Jurgen Fripp; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Laurence Morandeau; Graeme O'Keefe; Roger Price; Parnesh Raniga; Peter Robins; Oscar Acosta; Nat Lenzo; Cassandra Szoeke; Olivier Salvado; Richard Head; Ralph Martins; Colin L Masters; David Ames; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Rik Vandenberghe; Koen Van Laere; Adrian Ivanoiu; Eric Salmon; Christine Bastin; Eric Triau; Steen Hasselbalch; Ian Law; Allan Andersen; Alex Korner; Lennart Minthon; Gaëtan Garraux; Natalie Nelissen; Guy Bormans; Chris Buckley; Rikard Owenius; Lennart Thurfjell; Gill Farrar; David J Brooks Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Julie A Schneider; Barry J Bedell; Thomas G Beach; Warren B Bilker; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; Franz Hefti; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Michael J Krautkramer; Hank F Kung; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Eric P Reiman; P Eric M Reiman; Simone P Zehntner; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: W J Jagust; S M Landau; L M Shaw; J Q Trojanowski; R A Koeppe; E M Reiman; N L Foster; R C Petersen; M W Weiner; J C Price; C A Mathis Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: William E Klunk; Henry Engler; Agneta Nordberg; Yanming Wang; Gunnar Blomqvist; Daniel P Holt; Mats Bergström; Irina Savitcheva; Guo-feng Huang; Sergio Estrada; Birgitta Ausén; Manik L Debnath; Julien Barletta; Julie C Price; Johan Sandell; Brian J Lopresti; Anders Wall; Pernilla Koivisto; Gunnar Antoni; Chester A Mathis; Bengt Långström Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Susan M Landau; Mark A Mintun; Abhinay D Joshi; Robert A Koeppe; Ronald C Petersen; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; William J Jagust Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Milos D Ikonomovic; William E Klunk; Eric E Abrahamson; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Brian J Lopresti; Scott Ziolko; Wenzhu Bi; William R Paljug; Manik L Debnath; Caroline E Hope; Barbara A Isanski; Ronald L Hamilton; Steven T DeKosky Journal: Brain Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Miguel Ángel Araque Caballero; Matthias Brendel; Andreas Delker; Jinyi Ren; Axel Rominger; Peter Bartenstein; Martin Dichgans; Michael W Weiner; Michael Ewers Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: E Cavedo; S Lista; Z Khachaturian; P Aisen; P Amouyel; K Herholz; C R Jack; R Sperling; J Cummings; K Blennow; S O'Bryant; G B Frisoni; A Khachaturian; M Kivipelto; W Klunk; K Broich; S Andrieu; M Thiebaut de Schotten; J-F Mangin; A A Lammertsma; K Johnson; S Teipel; A Drzezga; A Bokde; O Colliot; H Bakardjian; H Zetterberg; B Dubois; B Vellas; L S Schneider; H Hampel Journal: J Prev Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014-12
Authors: Christopher Breault; Jonathan Piper; Abhinay D Joshi; Sara D Pirozzi; Aaron S Nelson; Ming Lu; Michael J Pontecorvo; Mark A Mintun; Michael D Devous Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-07-15
Authors: Jeremy A Elman; Matthew S Panizzon; Daniel E Gustavson; Carol E Franz; Mark E Sanderson-Cimino; Michael J Lyons; William S Kremen Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Michael J Properzi; Rachel F Buckley; Jasmeer P Chhatwal; Michael C Donohue; Cristina Lois; Elizabeth C Mormino; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Aaron P Schultz Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: André F Martins; Alexandre C Oliveira; Jean-François Morfin; Douglas V Laurents; Éva Tóth; Carlos F G C Geraldes Journal: J Biol Inorg Chem Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 3.358