Chul Hyoung Lyoo1, Masamichi Ikawa2, Jeih-San Liow2, Sami S Zoghbi2, Cheryl L Morse2, Victor W Pike2, Masahiro Fujita2, Robert B Innis2, William Charles Kreisl3. 1. Department of Neurology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea Molecular Imaging Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and. 2. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and. 3. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York kreislw@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Alzheimer disease (AD) is associated with an increase in the brain of the 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO), which is overexpressed in activated microglia and reactive astrocytes. Measuring the density of TSPO with PET typically requires absolute quantitation with arterial blood sampling, because a reference region devoid of TSPO does not exist in the brain. We sought to determine whether a simple ratio method could substitute for absolute quantitation of binding with (11)C-PBR28, a second-generation radioligand for TSPO. METHODS: (11)C-PBR28 PET imaging was performed in 21 healthy controls, 11 individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and 25 AD patients. Group differences in (11)C-PBR28 binding were compared using 2 methods. The first was the gold standard method of calculating total distribution volume (V(T)), using the 2-tissue-compartment model with the arterial input function, corrected for plasma-free fraction of radiotracer (f(P)). The second method used a ratio of brain uptake in target regions to that in cerebellum-that is, standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR). RESULTS: Using absolute quantitation, we confirmed that TSPO binding (V(T)/f(P)) was greater in AD patients than in healthy controls in expected temporoparietal regions and was not significantly different among the 3 groups in the cerebellum. When the cerebellum was used as a pseudo-reference region, the SUVR method detected greater binding in AD patients than controls in the same regions as absolute quantification and in 1 additional region, suggesting SUVR may have greater sensitivity. Coefficients of variation of SUVR measurements were about two-thirds lower than those of absolute quantification, and the resulting statistical significance was much higher for SUVR when comparing AD and healthy controls (e.g., P < 0.0005 for SUVR vs. P = 0.023 for VT/fP in combined middle and inferior temporal cortex). CONCLUSION: To measure TSPO density in AD patients and control subjects, a simple ratio method SUVR can substitute for, and may even be more sensitive than, absolute quantitation. The SUVR method is expected to improve subject tolerability by allowing shorter scanning time and not requiring arterial catheterization. In addition, this ratio method allows smaller sample sizes for comparable statistical significance because of the relatively low variability of the ratio values.
UNLABELLED: Alzheimer disease (AD) is associated with an increase in the brain of the 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO), which is overexpressed in activated microglia and reactive astrocytes. Measuring the density of TSPO with PET typically requires absolute quantitation with arterial blood sampling, because a reference region devoid of TSPO does not exist in the brain. We sought to determine whether a simple ratio method could substitute for absolute quantitation of binding with (11)C-PBR28, a second-generation radioligand for TSPO. METHODS:(11)C-PBR28 PET imaging was performed in 21 healthy controls, 11 individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and 25 ADpatients. Group differences in (11)C-PBR28 binding were compared using 2 methods. The first was the gold standard method of calculating total distribution volume (V(T)), using the 2-tissue-compartment model with the arterial input function, corrected for plasma-free fraction of radiotracer (f(P)). The second method used a ratio of brain uptake in target regions to that in cerebellum-that is, standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR). RESULTS: Using absolute quantitation, we confirmed that TSPO binding (V(T)/f(P)) was greater in ADpatients than in healthy controls in expected temporoparietal regions and was not significantly different among the 3 groups in the cerebellum. When the cerebellum was used as a pseudo-reference region, the SUVR method detected greater binding in ADpatients than controls in the same regions as absolute quantification and in 1 additional region, suggesting SUVR may have greater sensitivity. Coefficients of variation of SUVR measurements were about two-thirds lower than those of absolute quantification, and the resulting statistical significance was much higher for SUVR when comparing AD and healthy controls (e.g., P < 0.0005 for SUVR vs. P = 0.023 for VT/fP in combined middle and inferior temporal cortex). CONCLUSION: To measure TSPO density in ADpatients and control subjects, a simple ratio method SUVR can substitute for, and may even be more sensitive than, absolute quantitation. The SUVR method is expected to improve subject tolerability by allowing shorter scanning time and not requiring arterial catheterization. In addition, this ratio method allows smaller sample sizes for comparable statistical significance because of the relatively low variability of the ratio values.
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Robert B Innis; Vincent J Cunningham; Jacques Delforge; Masahiro Fujita; Albert Gjedde; Roger N Gunn; James Holden; Sylvain Houle; Sung-Cheng Huang; Masanori Ichise; Hidehiro Iida; Hiroshi Ito; Yuichi Kimura; Robert A Koeppe; Gitte M Knudsen; Juhani Knuuti; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Marc Laruelle; Jean Logan; Ralph Paul Maguire; Mark A Mintun; Evan D Morris; Ramin Parsey; Julie C Price; Mark Slifstein; Vesna Sossi; Tetsuya Suhara; John R Votaw; Dean F Wong; Richard E Carson Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Romina Mizrahi; Pablo M Rusjan; James Kennedy; Bruce Pollock; Benoit Mulsant; Ivonne Suridjan; Vincenzo De Luca; Alan A Wilson; Sylvain Houle Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Jennifer M Coughlin; Yuchuan Wang; Shuangchao Ma; Chen Yue; Pearl K Kim; Ashley V Adams; Heidi V Roosa; Kenneth L Gage; Marigo Stathis; Rana Rais; Camilo Rojas; Jennifer L McGlothan; Crystal C Watkins; Ned Sacktor; Tomas R Guilarte; Yun Zhou; Akira Sawa; Barbara S Slusher; Brian Caffo; Michael Kassiou; Christopher J Endres; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 2.643
Authors: A Okello; P Edison; H A Archer; F E Turkheimer; J Kennedy; R Bullock; Z Walker; A Kennedy; N Fox; M Rossor; D J Brooks Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David R J Owen; Roger N Gunn; Eugenii A Rabiner; Idriss Bennacef; Masahiro Fujita; William C Kreisl; Robert B Innis; Victor W Pike; Richard Reynolds; Paul M Matthews; Christine A Parker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Federico E Turkheimer; Paul Edison; Nicola Pavese; Federico Roncaroli; Alexander N Anderson; Alexander Hammers; Alexander Gerhard; Rainer Hinz; Yan F Tai; David J Brooks Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Aurelija Jučaite; Zsolt Cselényi; Annie Arvidsson; Gabrielle Ahlberg; Per Julin; Katarina Varnäs; Per Stenkrona; Jan Andersson; Christer Halldin; Lars Farde Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Arthur L Brody; Robert Hubert; Ryutaro Enoki; Lizette Y Garcia; Michael S Mamoun; Kyoji Okita; Edythe D London; Erika L Nurmi; Lauren C Seaman; Mark A Mandelkern Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: K Collste; P Plavén-Sigray; H Fatouros-Bergman; P Victorsson; M Schain; A Forsberg; N Amini; S Aeinehband; S Erhardt; C Halldin; L Flyckt; L Farde; S Cervenka Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Milky Kohno; Jeanne Link; Laura E Dennis; Holly McCready; Marilyn Huckans; William F Hoffman; Jennifer M Loftis Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2019-01-26 Impact factor: 3.533