Duygu Tosun1, Sarang Joshi, Michael W Weiner. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Veterans Administration Medical Center, Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify a neuroimaging signature predictive of brain amyloidosis as a screening tool to identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) that are most likely to have high levels of brain amyloidosis or to be amyloid-free. METHODS: The prediction model cohort included 62 MCI subjects screened with structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and (11) C-labeled Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET). We identified an anatomical shape variation-based neuroimaging predictor of brain amyloidosis and defined a structural MRI-based brain amyloidosis score (sMRI-BAS). Amyloid beta positivity (Aβ(+) ) predictive power of sMRI-BAS was validated on an independent cohort of 153 MCI patients with cerebrospinal fluid Aβ1-42 biomarker data but no amyloid PET scans. We compared the Aβ(+) predictive power of sMRI-BAS to those of apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype and hippocampal volume, the 2 most relevant candidate biomarkers for the prediction of brain amyloidosis. RESULTS: Anatomical shape variations predictive of brain amyloidosis in MCI embraced a characteristic spatial pattern known for high vulnerability to Alzheimer disease pathology, including the medial temporal lobe, temporal-parietal association cortices, posterior cingulate, precuneus, hippocampus, amygdala, caudate, and fornix/stria terminals. Aβ(+) prediction performance of sMRI-BAS and ApoE genotype jointly was significantly better than the performance of each predictor separately (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.88 vs AUC = 0.70 and AUC = 0.81, respectively) with >90% sensitivity and specificity at 20% false-positive rate and false-negative rate thresholds. Performance of hippocampal volume as an independent predictor of brain amyloidosis in MCI was only marginally better than random chance (AUC = 0.56). INTERPRETATION: As one of the first attempts to use an imaging technique that does not require amyloid-specific radioligands for identification of individuals with brain amyloidosis, our findings could lead to development of multidisciplinary/multimodality brain amyloidosis biomarkers that are reliable, minimally invasive, and widely available.
OBJECTIVE: To identify a neuroimaging signature predictive of brain amyloidosis as a screening tool to identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) that are most likely to have high levels of brain amyloidosis or to be amyloid-free. METHODS: The prediction model cohort included 62 MCI subjects screened with structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and (11) C-labeled Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET). We identified an anatomical shape variation-based neuroimaging predictor of brain amyloidosis and defined a structural MRI-based brain amyloidosis score (sMRI-BAS). Amyloid beta positivity (Aβ(+) ) predictive power of sMRI-BAS was validated on an independent cohort of 153 MCI patients with cerebrospinal fluid Aβ1-42 biomarker data but no amyloid PET scans. We compared the Aβ(+) predictive power of sMRI-BAS to those of apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype and hippocampal volume, the 2 most relevant candidate biomarkers for the prediction of brain amyloidosis. RESULTS: Anatomical shape variations predictive of brain amyloidosis in MCI embraced a characteristic spatial pattern known for high vulnerability to Alzheimer disease pathology, including the medial temporal lobe, temporal-parietal association cortices, posterior cingulate, precuneus, hippocampus, amygdala, caudate, and fornix/stria terminals. Aβ(+) prediction performance of sMRI-BAS and ApoE genotype jointly was significantly better than the performance of each predictor separately (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.88 vs AUC = 0.70 and AUC = 0.81, respectively) with >90% sensitivity and specificity at 20% false-positive rate and false-negative rate thresholds. Performance of hippocampal volume as an independent predictor of brain amyloidosis in MCI was only marginally better than random chance (AUC = 0.56). INTERPRETATION: As one of the first attempts to use an imaging technique that does not require amyloid-specific radioligands for identification of individuals with brain amyloidosis, our findings could lead to development of multidisciplinary/multimodality brain amyloidosis biomarkers that are reliable, minimally invasive, and widely available.
Authors: Liana G Apostolova; Rebecca A Dutton; Ivo D Dinov; Kiralee M Hayashi; Arthur W Toga; Jeffrey L Cummings; Paul M Thompson Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2006-05
Authors: Noora M Scheinin; Tuula K Tolvanen; Ian A Wilson; Eveliina M Arponen; Kjell A Någren; Juha O Rinne Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Harald Hampel; Katharina Bürger; Jens C Pruessner; Raymond Zinkowski; John DeBernardis; Daniel Kerkman; Gerda Leinsinger; Alan C Evans; Peter Davies; Hans-Jürgen Möller; Stefan J Teipel Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-05
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Sharon Xie; Jesse Chittams; Douglas Ewbank; Elaine Peskind; Douglas Galasko; John C Morris; Daniel W McKeel; Martin Farlow; Sharon L Weitlauf; Joseph Quinn; Jeffrey Kaye; David Knopman; Hiroyuki Arai; Rachelle S Doody; Charles DeCarli; Susan Leight; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2003-12
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Matt A Bernstein; Nick C Fox; Paul Thompson; Gene Alexander; Danielle Harvey; Bret Borowski; Paula J Britson; Jennifer L Whitwell; Chadwick Ward; Anders M Dale; Joel P Felmlee; Jeffrey L Gunter; Derek L G Hill; Ron Killiany; Norbert Schuff; Sabrina Fox-Bosetti; Chen Lin; Colin Studholme; Charles S DeCarli; Gunnar Krueger; Heidi A Ward; Gregory J Metzger; Katherine T Scott; Richard Mallozzi; Daniel Blezek; Joshua Levy; Josef P Debbins; Adam S Fleisher; Marilyn Albert; Robert Green; George Bartzokis; Gary Glover; John Mugler; Michael W Weiner Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Matthew L Senjem; Stephen D Weigand; Bradley J Kemp; Maria M Shiung; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Brain Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Hilary A Archer; Paul Edison; David J Brooks; Jo Barnes; Chris Frost; Tom Yeatman; Nick C Fox; Martin N Rossor Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Josephine Barnes; Matt A Bernstein; Bret J Borowski; James Brewer; Shona Clegg; Anders M Dale; Owen Carmichael; Christopher Ching; Charles DeCarli; Rahul S Desikan; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Anders M Fjell; Evan Fletcher; Nick C Fox; Jeff Gunter; Boris A Gutman; Dominic Holland; Xue Hua; Philip Insel; Kejal Kantarci; Ron J Killiany; Gunnar Krueger; Kelvin K Leung; Scott Mackin; Pauline Maillard; Ian B Malone; Niklas Mattsson; Linda McEvoy; Marc Modat; Susanne Mueller; Rachel Nosheny; Sebastien Ourselin; Norbert Schuff; Matthew L Senjem; Alix Simonson; Paul M Thompson; Dan Rettmann; Prashanthi Vemuri; Kristine Walhovd; Yansong Zhao; Samantha Zuk; Michael Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Bernard J Hanseeuw; Aaron P Schultz; Rebecca A Betensky; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Caitlin M Kirkwood; Matthew L MacDonald; Tadhg A Schempf; Anil V Vatsavayi; Milos D Ikonomovic; Jeremy L Koppel; Ying Ding; Mai Sun; Julia K Kofler; Oscar L Lopez; Nathan A Yates; Robert A Sweet Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Mauricio O Nava-Mesa; Lydia Jiménez-Díaz; Javier Yajeya; Juan D Navarro-Lopez Journal: Front Cell Neurosci Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 5.505
Authors: Byoung Seok Ye; Hee Jin Kim; Yeo Jin Kim; Na-Yeon Jung; Jin San Lee; Juyoun Lee; Young Kyoung Jang; Jin-Ju Yang; Jong-Min Lee; Jacob W Vogel; Duk L Na; Sang Won Seo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 4.379