| Literature DB >> 25918674 |
Behrooz H Yousefi1, Boris von Reutern2, Daniela Scherübl3, André Manook4, Markus Schwaiger3, Timo Grimmer5, Gjermund Henriksen3, Stefan Förster3, Alexander Drzezga6, Hans-Jürgen Wester1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, an increasing number of studies have been published on the use of amyloid-β (Aβ) PET imaging with different (18)F-radiopharmaceuticals for clinical characterization of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in different stages. However, distinct study cohorts and different quantification techniques allow only for an indirect comparison between the different tracers. Thus, the aim of this study was the direct intra-individual in vivo comparison of different Aβ-targeted radiopharmaceuticals for PET imaging, including the newly developed agent [(18)F]FIBT.Entities:
Keywords: APP/PS1 transgenic mouse animal model of AD; Alzheimer’s disease; Autoradiography; FIBT; Florbetaben; In vivo imaging; In vivo radiotracers ranking; PiB; Small-animal PET; β-amyloid
Year: 2015 PMID: 25918674 PMCID: PMC4402683 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-015-0090-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res Impact factor: 3.138
Scheme 1Chemical structure of the three Aβ radiopharmaceuticals used in this study.
Scanning regimen of [ C]PiB, [ F]FIBT, and [ F]florbetaben
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APP/PS1 | 1 | Florbetaben | 12.2 | 5 | FIBT | 9.4 | 3 | PiB | 8.9 |
| 2 | Florbetaben | 8.9 | 5 | FIBT | 6.6 | 3 | PiB | 10.7 | |
| 3 | Florbetaben | 9.2 | 13 | FIBT | 16.3 | 3 | PiB | 19.5 | |
| 4 | Florbetaben | 13.4 | 13 | FIBT | 13.0 | 3 | PiB | 16.7 | |
| Ctl | 1 | Florbetaben | 10.2 | 5 | FIBT | 10.6 | 3 | PiB | 14.3 |
| 2 | Florbetaben | 7.9 | 5 | FIBT | 8.0 | 3 | PiB | 12.5 | |
| 3 | Florbetaben | 4.6 | 13 | FIBT | 14.0 | 3 | PiB | 18.4 |
Log values of tested compounds (mean ± SD; = 6)
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Log | 1.50 ± 0.11 | 1.92 ± 0.06 | 1.58 ± 0.13 |
|
| [18F]FIBT > [11C]PiB* | [18F]FIBT > [18F]florbetaben* | [18F]Florbetaben > [11C]PiB |
*Indicates significant difference at p < 0.05 in Bonferroni corrected t-tests.
Figure 1Brain uptake of the tested radiopharmaceuticals. Expressed as percent of injected dose per gram brain weight in male BALB/c mice at 5 and 30 min post injection (N = 5 for each tracer at each time point). p.i., post injection.
Figure 2Visual comparison of the three radiopharmaceuticals within the same group of animals. Each row represents a mean image of four 24-month-old APP/PS1 transgenic animals (first three rows), respectively, three age matched wild-type animals (C57BL6/J, last three rows). In vivo PET images in each row represent percentage of injected dose per cubic centimeter (%ID/cc) averaged over 35 to 45 min post injection, co-registered to a MRI template. From left to right showing axial, sagittal, and coronal views. Red arrow points at higher unspecific uptake of florbetaben compared to FIBT in the brainstem of wild-type animals.
Figure 3Dynamic PET time activity curves of the cortex-VOI and the cerebellum-VOI. Time-activity curves of the three radiopharmaceuticals (rows) within four APP/PS1 tg mice (left column) and three control mice (right column). Values are percentage of injected dose per cubic centimeter (%ID/cc) ± SD for a cortex + hippocampus VOI (red line) and a cerebellum VOI (blue line).
Figure 4PET ratios and group-wise mean dynamic PET ratio. (A1) PET ratios within the same transgenic animals for FIBT (x-axis) and florbetaben (y-axis). (A2) Group-wise mean dynamic PET ratio curves for the three radiopharmaceuticals. The four different symbols in A1 mark the individual transgenic animal for which representative Thioflavin S staining images, and plaque load results are given in (B1) to (B4). White arrows point at artefacts in the cerebellum that do not represent amyloid plaques.
Mean PET ratios (SUVR ± SD) within the four APP/PS1 tg mice and the three control mice (C57BL6/J)
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| APP/PS1 ( | 1.68 ± 0.15 | 1.35 ± 0.06 | 2.08 ± 0.24 |
| C57BL6/J ( | 0.95 ± 0.02 | 0.90 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.06 |
| tg/ctl | 1.78 ± 0.16 | 1.50 ± 0.06 | 2.11 ± 0.24 |
|
| [18F]FIBT > [18F]florbetaben* | [11C]PiB > [18F]florbetaben* | [11C]PiB > [18F]FIBT |
The last row gives the statistical results of group comparisons of tg/ctl ratio values; *indicates significant difference at p < 0.05 in Bonferroni corrected t-tests.
Figure 5Association of PET signal to Thioflavin S plaque load. Lines represent linear regressions for each tracer. The four different symbols marking the individual transgenic animals are the same as used in Figure 4.
Figure 6Direct visual comparison of PiB PET in mice and human. Image is showing from left to right axial, coronal, and sagittal views. Mouse images represent a mean image of the four APP/PS1 tg mice and the three control mice, respectively. Human images are from a representative AD patient and healthy control subject, respectively.
Human in relation to mouse PET with [ C]PiB
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| AD | 2.01 ± 0.29 | 2.08 ± 0.24 |
| Controls | 1.22 ± 0.12 | 0.99 ± 0.06 |
| AD/ctl | 1.65 ± 0.41 | 2.11 ± 0.24 |
Global cortex/cerebellum ratio (expressed as SUVR) in the human AD group (N = 20) and the HC group (N = 15) vs. four APP/PS1 tg mice and three control mice.