Jon B Toledo1, Maria Bjerke1, Xiao Da2, Susan M Landau3, Norman L Foster4, William Jagust3, Clifford Jack5, Michael Weiner6, Christos Davatzikos2, Leslie M Shaw1, John Q Trojanowski1. 1. Institute on Aging, Center for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2. Center for Biomedical Image Computing and Analytics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 3. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley. 4. Center for Alzheimer's Care, Imaging and Research, Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 5. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. 6. Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases, Department of Radiology, San Francisco VA Medical Center/University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomographic (PET) amyloid biomarkers have been proposed for the detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology in living patients and for the tracking of longitudinal changes, but the relation between biomarkers needs further study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between CSF and PET amyloid biomarkers (cross-sectional and longitudinal measures) and compare the cutoffs for these measures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal clinical cohort study from 2005 to 2014 including 820 participants with at least 1 florbetapir F-18 (hereafter referred to as simply florbetapir)-PET scan and at least 1 CSF β-amyloid 1-42 (Aβ1-42) sample obtained within 30 days of each other (501 participants had a second PET scan after 2 years, including 150 participants with CSF Aβ1-42 measurements). Data were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four different PET scans processing pipelines from 2 different laboratories were compared. The PET cutoff values were established using a mixture-modeling approach, and different mathematical models were applied to define the association between CSF and PET amyloid measures. RESULTS: The values of the CSF Aβ1-42 samples and florbetapir-PET scans showed a nonlinear association (R2 = 0.48-0.66), with the strongest association for values in the middle range. The presence of a larger dynamic range of florbetapir-PET scan values in the higher range compared with the CSF Aβ1-42 plateau explained the differences in correlation with cognition (R2 = 0.36 and R2 = 0.25, respectively). The APOE genotype significantly modified the association between both biomarkers. The PET cutoff values derived from an unsupervised classifier converged with previous PET cutoff values and the established CSF Aβ1-42 cutoff levels. There was no association between longitudinal Aβ1-42 levels and standardized uptake value ratios during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The association between both biomarkers is limited to a middle range of values, is modified by the APOE genotype, and is absent for longitudinal changes; 4 different approaches in 2 different platforms converge on similar pathological Aβ cutoff levels; and different pipelines to process PET scans showed correlated but not identical results. Our findings suggest that both biomarkers measure different aspects of AD Aβ pathology.
IMPORTANCE: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomographic (PET) amyloid biomarkers have been proposed for the detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology in living patients and for the tracking of longitudinal changes, but the relation between biomarkers needs further study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between CSF and PET amyloid biomarkers (cross-sectional and longitudinal measures) and compare the cutoffs for these measures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal clinical cohort study from 2005 to 2014 including 820 participants with at least 1 florbetapirF-18 (hereafter referred to as simply florbetapir)-PET scan and at least 1 CSF β-amyloid 1-42 (Aβ1-42) sample obtained within 30 days of each other (501 participants had a second PET scan after 2 years, including 150 participants with CSF Aβ1-42 measurements). Data were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four different PET scans processing pipelines from 2 different laboratories were compared. The PET cutoff values were established using a mixture-modeling approach, and different mathematical models were applied to define the association between CSF and PET amyloid measures. RESULTS: The values of the CSF Aβ1-42 samples and florbetapir-PET scans showed a nonlinear association (R2 = 0.48-0.66), with the strongest association for values in the middle range. The presence of a larger dynamic range of florbetapir-PET scan values in the higher range compared with the CSF Aβ1-42 plateau explained the differences in correlation with cognition (R2 = 0.36 and R2 = 0.25, respectively). The APOE genotype significantly modified the association between both biomarkers. The PET cutoff values derived from an unsupervised classifier converged with previous PET cutoff values and the established CSF Aβ1-42 cutoff levels. There was no association between longitudinal Aβ1-42 levels and standardized uptake value ratios during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The association between both biomarkers is limited to a middle range of values, is modified by the APOE genotype, and is absent for longitudinal changes; 4 different approaches in 2 different platforms converge on similar pathological Aβ cutoff levels; and different pipelines to process PET scans showed correlated but not identical results. Our findings suggest that both biomarkers measure different aspects of AD Aβ pathology.
Authors: Vanessa H Clark; Susan M Resnick; Jimit Doshi; Lori L Beason-Held; Yun Zhou; Luigi Ferrucci; Dean F Wong; Michael A Kraut; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Anne M Fagan; Leslie M Shaw; Chengjie Xiong; Hugo Vanderstichele; Mark A Mintun; John Q Trojanowski; Els Coart; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-05-09
Authors: William E Klunk; Robert A Koeppe; Julie C Price; Tammie L Benzinger; Michael D Devous; William J Jagust; Keith A Johnson; Chester A Mathis; Davneet Minhas; Michael J Pontecorvo; Christopher C Rowe; Daniel M Skovronsky; Mark A Mintun Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 21.566
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: Nelleke Tolboom; Wiesje M van der Flier; Maqsood Yaqub; Ronald Boellaard; Nicolaas A Verwey; Marinus A Blankenstein; Albert D Windhorst; Philip Scheltens; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Susana Boluda; Jon B Toledo; David J Irwin; Kevin M Raible; Matt D Byrne; Edward B Lee; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Xiao Da; Jon B Toledo; Jarcy Zee; David A Wolk; Sharon X Xie; Yangming Ou; Amanda Shacklett; Paraskevi Parmpi; Leslie Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Henrik Zetterberg; Argonde C van Harten; Lidia Glodzik; Pablo Martinez-Lage; Luisella Bocchio-Chiavetto; Lorena Rami; Oskar Hansson; Reisa Sperling; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Ricardo S Osorio; Hugo Vanderstichele; Manu Vandijck; Harald Hampel; Stefan Teipl; Abhay Moghekar; Marilyn Albert; William T Hu; Jose A Monge Argilés; Ana Gorostidi; Charlotte E Teunissen; Peter P De Deyn; Bradley T Hyman; Jose L Molinuevo; Giovanni B Frisoni; Gurutz Linazasoro; Mony J de Leon; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Kaj Blennow; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Brain Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Emily C Edmonds; Katherine J Bangen; Lisa Delano-Wood; Daniel A Nation; Ansgar J Furst; David P Salmon; Mark W Bondi Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Vincent Doré; Samantha C Burnham; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Maria Bjerke; Kewei Chen; Martin Rozycki; Clifford R Jack; Michael W Weiner; Steven E Arnold; Eric M Reiman; Christos Davatzikos; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Jesse Cedarbaum; Michael C Donohue; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie Shaw; Paul M Thompson; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Ju-Hee Kang; Magdalena Korecka; Michal J Figurski; Jon B Toledo; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Teresa Waligorska; Magdalena Brylska; Leona Fields; Nirali Shah; Holly Soares; Robert A Dean; Hugo Vanderstichele; Ronald C Petersen; Paul S Aisen; Andrew J Saykin; Michael W Weiner; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Andrew J Saykin; Li Shen; Xiaohui Yao; Sungeun Kim; Kwangsik Nho; Shannon L Risacher; Vijay K Ramanan; Tatiana M Foroud; Kelley M Faber; Nadeem Sarwar; Leanne M Munsie; Xiaolan Hu; Holly D Soares; Steven G Potkin; Paul M Thompson; John S K Kauwe; Rima Kaddurah-Daouk; Robert C Green; Arthur W Toga; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.566