Ann Hake1, Paula T Trzepacz2, Shufang Wang3, Peng Yu3, Michael Case3, Helen Hochstetler3, Michael M Witte3, Elisabeth K Degenhardt4, Robert A Dean3. 1. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Department of Neurology Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Electronic address: hakean@lilly.com. 2. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Indiana University Health Physicians Group, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the relationship between florbetapir-F18 positron emission tomography (FBP PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. METHODS: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-Grand Opportunity and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (GO/2) healthy control (HC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia subjects with clinical measures and CSF collected ±90 days of FBP PET data were analyzed using correlation and logistic regression. RESULTS: In HC and MCI subjects, FBP PET anterior and posterior cingulate and composite standard uptake value ratios correlated with CSF amyloid beta (Aβ1-42) and tau/Aβ1-42 ratios. Using logistic regression, Aβ1-42, total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau181P (p-tau), and FBP PET composite each differentiated HC versus AD. Aβ1-42 and t-tau distinguished MCI versus AD, without additional contribution by FBP PET. Total tau and p-tau added discriminative power to FBP PET when classifying HC versus AD. CONCLUSION: Based on cross-sectional diagnostic groups, both amyloid and tau measures distinguish healthy from demented subjects. Longitudinal analyses are needed.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the relationship between florbetapir-F18 positron emission tomography (FBP PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. METHODS:Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-Grand Opportunity and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (GO/2) healthy control (HC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia subjects with clinical measures and CSF collected ±90 days of FBP PET data were analyzed using correlation and logistic regression. RESULTS: In HC and MCI subjects, FBP PET anterior and posterior cingulate and composite standard uptake value ratios correlated with CSFamyloid beta (Aβ1-42) and tau/Aβ1-42 ratios. Using logistic regression, Aβ1-42, total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau181P (p-tau), and FBP PET composite each differentiated HC versus AD. Aβ1-42 and t-tau distinguished MCI versus AD, without additional contribution by FBP PET. Total tau and p-tau added discriminative power to FBP PET when classifying HC versus AD. CONCLUSION: Based on cross-sectional diagnostic groups, both amyloid and tau measures distinguish healthy from demented subjects. Longitudinal analyses are needed.
Authors: Anne M Fagan; Mark A Mintun; Robert H Mach; Sang-Yoon Lee; Carmen S Dence; Aarti R Shah; Gina N LaRossa; Michael L Spinner; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Steven T DeKosky; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Prashanthi Vemuri; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Paul S Aisen; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw; Matthew A Bernstein; Ronald C Petersen; Michael W Weiner; David S Knopman Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-08-08
Authors: T Fritsch; M J McClendon; K A Smyth; A J Lerner; C H Chen; G J Petot; S M Debanne; A Soas; R P Friedland Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: Vincent Doré; Victor L Villemagne; Pierrick Bourgeat; Jurgen Fripp; Oscar Acosta; Gael Chetélat; Luping Zhou; Ralph Martins; Kathryn A Ellis; Colin L Masters; David Ames; Oliver Salvado; Christopher C Rowe Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Philipp A Thomann; Elmar Kaiser; Peter Schönknecht; Johannes Pantel; Marco Essig; Johannes Schröder Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.186
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: Min Soo Byun; Song E Kim; Jinsick Park; Dahyun Yi; Young Min Choe; Bo Kyung Sohn; Hyo Jung Choi; Hyewon Baek; Ji Young Han; Jong Inn Woo; Dong Young Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Philip S J Weston; Ross W Paterson; Marc Modat; Ninon Burgos; Manuel J Cardoso; Nadia Magdalinou; Manja Lehmann; John C Dickson; Anna Barnes; Jamshed B Bomanji; Irfan Kayani; David M Cash; Sebastien Ourselin; Jamie Toombs; Michael P Lunn; Catherine J Mummery; Jason D Warren; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox; Henrik Zetterberg; Jonathan M Schott Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2015-11-02
Authors: Philip S J Weston; Ross W Paterson; John Dickson; Anna Barnes; Jamshed B Bomanji; Irfan Kayani; Michael P Lunn; Catherine J Mummery; Jason D Warren; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox; Henrik Zetterberg; Jonathan M Schott Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 4.472