Susan M Landau1, Allison Fero2, Suzanne L Baker2, Robert Koeppe3, Mark Mintun4, Kewei Chen5, Eric M Reiman5, William J Jagust6. 1. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, California Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California slandau@berkeley.edu. 2. Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. 3. Radiology Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and. 5. Banner Alzheimer's Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 6. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, California Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The accurate measurement of β-amyloid (Aβ) change using amyloid PET imaging is important for Alzheimer disease research and clinical trials but poses several unique challenges. In particular, reference region measurement instability may lead to spurious changes in cortical regions of interest. To optimize our ability to measure (18)F-florbetapir longitudinal change, we evaluated several candidate regions of interest and their influence on cortical florbetapir change over a 2-y period in participants from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: We examined the agreement in cortical florbetapir change detected using 6 candidate reference regions (cerebellar gray matter, whole cerebellum, brain stem/pons, eroded subcortical white matter [WM], and 2 additional combinations of these regions) in 520 ADNI subjects. We used concurrent cerebrospinal fluid Aβ1-42 measurements to identify subgroups of ADNI subjects expected to remain stable over follow-up (stable Aβ group; n = 14) and subjects expected to increase (increasing Aβ group; n = 91). We then evaluated reference regions according to whether cortical change was minimal in the stable Aβ group and cortical retention increased in the increasing Aβ group. RESULTS: There was poor agreement across reference regions in the amount of cortical change observed across all 520 ADNI subjects. Within the stable Aβ group, however, cortical florbetapir change was 1%-2% across all reference regions, indicating high consistency. In the increasing Aβ group, cortical increases were significant with all reference regions. Reference regions containing WM (as opposed to cerebellum or pons) enabled detection of cortical change that was more physiologically plausible and more likely to increase over time. CONCLUSION: Reference region selection has an important influence on the detection of florbetapir change. Compared with cerebellum or pons alone, reference regions that included subcortical WM resulted in change measurements that are more accurate. In addition, because use of WM-containing reference regions involves dividing out cortical signal contained in the reference region (via partial-volume effects), use of these WM-containing regions may result in more conservative estimates of actual change. Future analyses using different tracers, tracer-kinetic models, pipelines, and comparisons with other biomarkers will further optimize our ability to accurately measure Aβ changes over time.
UNLABELLED: The accurate measurement of β-amyloid (Aβ) change using amyloid PET imaging is important for Alzheimer disease research and clinical trials but poses several unique challenges. In particular, reference region measurement instability may lead to spurious changes in cortical regions of interest. To optimize our ability to measure (18)F-florbetapirlongitudinal change, we evaluated several candidate regions of interest and their influence on cortical florbetapir change over a 2-y period in participants from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: We examined the agreement in cortical florbetapir change detected using 6 candidate reference regions (cerebellar gray matter, whole cerebellum, brain stem/pons, eroded subcortical white matter [WM], and 2 additional combinations of these regions) in 520 ADNI subjects. We used concurrent cerebrospinal fluid Aβ1-42 measurements to identify subgroups of ADNI subjects expected to remain stable over follow-up (stable Aβ group; n = 14) and subjects expected to increase (increasing Aβ group; n = 91). We then evaluated reference regions according to whether cortical change was minimal in the stable Aβ group and cortical retention increased in the increasing Aβ group. RESULTS: There was poor agreement across reference regions in the amount of cortical change observed across all 520 ADNI subjects. Within the stable Aβ group, however, cortical florbetapir change was 1%-2% across all reference regions, indicating high consistency. In the increasing Aβ group, cortical increases were significant with all reference regions. Reference regions containing WM (as opposed to cerebellum or pons) enabled detection of cortical change that was more physiologically plausible and more likely to increase over time. CONCLUSION: Reference region selection has an important influence on the detection of florbetapir change. Compared with cerebellum or pons alone, reference regions that included subcortical WM resulted in change measurements that are more accurate. In addition, because use of WM-containing reference regions involves dividing out cortical signal contained in the reference region (via partial-volume effects), use of these WM-containing regions may result in more conservative estimates of actual change. Future analyses using different tracers, tracer-kinetic models, pipelines, and comparisons with other biomarkers will further optimize our ability to accurately measure Aβ changes over time.
Authors: Andrei G Vlassenko; Mark A Mintun; Chengjie Xiong; Yvette I Sheline; Alison M Goate; Tammie L S Benzinger; John C Morris Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Susan M Landau; Shawn M Marks; Elizabeth C Mormino; Gil D Rabinovici; Hwamee Oh; James P O'Neil; Robert S Wilson; William J Jagust Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2012-05
Authors: Brian J Lopresti; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Jessica A Hoge; Scott K Ziolko; Xueling Lu; Carolyn C Meltzer; Kurt Schimmel; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Steven T DeKosky; Julie C Price Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Susan M Landau; Christopher Breault; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael Pontecorvo; Chester A Mathis; William J Jagust; Mark A Mintun Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Victor L Villemagne; Rachel S Mulligan; Svetlana Pejoska; Kevin Ong; Gareth Jones; Graeme O'Keefe; J Gordon Chan; Kenneth Young; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Abhinay D Joshi; Michael J Pontecorvo; Chrisopher M Clark; Alan P Carpenter; Danna L Jennings; Carl H Sadowsky; Lee P Adler; Karel D Kovnat; John P Seibyl; Anupa Arora; Krishnendu Saha; Jason D Burns; Mark J Lowrey; Mark A Mintun; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Hugo Vanderstichele; Malgorzata Knapik-Czajka; Christopher M Clark; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Kaj Blennow; Holly Soares; Adam Simon; Piotr Lewczuk; Robert Dean; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Samantha Burnham; Pierrick Bourgeat; Belinda Brown; Kathryn A Ellis; Olivier Salvado; Cassandra Szoeke; S Lance Macaulay; Ralph Martins; Paul Maruff; David Ames; Christopher C Rowe; Colin L Masters Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Saffire H Krance; Hugo Cogo-Moreira; Jennifer S Rabin; Sandra E Black; Walter Swardfager Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Fabio Raman; Sameera Grandhi; Charles F Murchison; Richard E Kennedy; Susan Landau; Erik D Roberson; Jonathan McConathy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie M Shaw; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Michael F Egan; James Kost; Tiffini Voss; Yuki Mukai; Paul S Aisen; Jeffrey L Cummings; Pierre N Tariot; Bruno Vellas; Christopher H van Dyck; Merce Boada; Ying Zhang; Wen Li; Christine Furtek; Erin Mahoney; Lyn Harper Mozley; Yi Mo; Cyrille Sur; David Michelson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
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