Literature DB >> 25257985

Comparison of MR-less PiB SUVR quantification methods.

Pierrick Bourgeat1, Victor L Villemagne2, Vincent Dore3, Belinda Brown4, S Lance Macaulay5, Ralph Martins4, Colin L Masters6, David Ames7, Kathryn Ellis8, Christopher C Rowe9, Olivier Salvado10, Jurgen Fripp10.   

Abstract

(11)C-Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) is a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer designed to bind to amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The potential of PiB as an early marker of AD led to the increasing use of PiB in clinical research studies and development of several F-18-labeled Aβ radiotracers. Automatic quantification of PiB images requires an accurate parcellation of the brain's gray matter (GM). Typically, this relies on a coregistered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to extract the cerebellar GM, compute the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), and provide parcellation and segmentation for quantification of regional and global SUVR. However, not all subjects can undergo MRI, in which case, an MR-less method is desirable. In this study, we assess 3 PET-only quantification methods: a mean atlas, an adaptive atlas, and a multi-atlas approaches on a database of 237 subjects having been imaged with both PiB PET and MRI. The PET-only methods were compared against MR-based SUVR quantification and evaluated in terms of correlation, average error, and performance in classifying subjects with low and high Aβ deposition. The mean atlas method suffered from a significant bias between the estimated neocortical SUVR and the PiB status, resulting in an overall error of 5.6% (R(2) = 0.98), compared with the adaptive and multi-atlas approaches that had errors of 3.06% and 2.74%, respectively (R(2) = 0.98), and no significant bias. In classifying PiB-negative from PiB-positive subjects, the mean atlas had 10 misclassified subjects compared with 0 for the adaptive and 1 for the multi-atlas approach. Overall, the adaptive and the multi-atlas approaches performed similarly well against the MR-based quantification and would be a suitable replacements for PiB quantification when no MRI is available.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alzheimer's disease; PET quantification; Pittsburgh compound B

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25257985     DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.04.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurobiol Aging        ISSN: 0197-4580            Impact factor:   4.673


  41 in total

1.  High performance plasma amyloid-β biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Akinori Nakamura; Naoki Kaneko; Victor L Villemagne; Takashi Kato; James Doecke; Vincent Doré; Chris Fowler; Qiao-Xin Li; Ralph Martins; Christopher Rowe; Taisuke Tomita; Katsumi Matsuzaki; Kenji Ishii; Kazunari Ishii; Yutaka Arahata; Shinichi Iwamoto; Kengo Ito; Koichi Tanaka; Colin L Masters; Katsuhiko Yanagisawa
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Generation of Structural MR Images from Amyloid PET: Application to MR-Less Quantification.

Authors:  Hongyoon Choi; Dong Soo Lee
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  A new integrated dual time-point amyloid PET/MRI data analysis method.

Authors:  Diego Cecchin; Henryk Barthel; Davide Poggiali; Annachiara Cagnin; Solveig Tiepolt; Pietro Zucchetta; Paolo Turco; Paolo Gallo; Anna Chiara Frigo; Osama Sabri; Franco Bui
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Deformation field correction for spatial normalization of PET images.

Authors:  Murat Bilgel; Aaron Carass; Susan M Resnick; Dean F Wong; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Impact of APOE-ε4 carriage on the onset and rates of neocortical Aβ-amyloid deposition.

Authors:  Samantha C Burnham; Simon M Laws; Charley A Budgeon; Vincent Doré; Tenielle Porter; Pierrick Bourgeat; Rachel F Buckley; Kevin Murray; Kathryn A Ellis; Berwin A Turlach; Olivier Salvado; David Ames; Ralph N Martins; Dorene Rentz; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe; Victor L Villemagne
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 4.673

6.  Amyloid PET Quantification Via End-to-End Training of a Deep Learning.

Authors:  Ji-Young Kim; Hoon Young Suh; Hyun Gee Ryoo; Dongkyu Oh; Hongyoon Choi; Jin Chul Paeng; Gi Jeong Cheon; Keon Wook Kang; Dong Soo Lee
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-10-14

7.  Visual interpretation of [18F]Florbetaben PET supported by deep learning-based estimation of amyloid burden.

Authors:  Ji-Young Kim; Dongkyu Oh; Kiyoung Sung; Hongyoon Choi; Jin Chul Paeng; Gi Jeong Cheon; Keon Wook Kang; Dong Young Lee; Dong Soo Lee
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Improved Accuracy of Amyloid PET Quantification with Adaptive Template-Based Anatomic Standardization.

Authors:  Yuma Tsubaki; Takayoshi Kitamura; Natsumi Shimokawa; Go Akamatsu; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Nucl Med Technol       Date:  2021-04-05

9.  Feasibility study of a PET-only amyloid quantification method: a comparison with visual interpretation.

Authors:  Natsumi Shimokawa; Go Akamatsu; Miyako Kadosaki; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2020-06-13       Impact factor: 2.668

Review 10.  Uses of Human MR and PET Imaging in Research of Neurodegenerative Brain Diseases.

Authors:  Christopher G Schwarz
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 7.620

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.