Yin J Chen1, Bedda L Rosario2, Wenzhu Mowrey2, Charles M Laymon1, Xueling Lu1, Oscar L Lopez3, William E Klunk4, Brian J Lopresti1, Chester A Mathis1, Julie C Price5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania pricejc@upmc.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The primary goal of this study was to assess the suitability of (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B ((11)C-PiB) blood-brain barrier delivery (K1) and relative delivery (R1) parameters as surrogate indices of cerebral blood flow (CBF), with a secondary goal of directly examining the extent to which simplified uptake measures of (11)C-PiB retention (amyloid-β load) may be influenced by CBF, in a cohort of controls and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: Nineteen participants (6 controls, 5 AD, 8 MCI) underwent MR imaging, (15)O-water PET, and (11)C-PiB PET in a single session. Fourteen regions of interest (including cerebellar reference region) were defined on MR imaging and applied to dynamic coregistered PET to generate time-activity curves. Multiple analysis approaches provided regional (15)O-water and (11)C-PiB measures of delivery and (11)C-PiB retention that included compartmental modeling distribution volume ratio (DVR), arterial- and reference-based Logan DVR, simplified reference tissue modeling 2 (SRTM2) DVR, and standardized uptake value ratios. Spearman correlation was performed among delivery measures (i.e., (15)O-water K1 and (11)C-PiB K1, relative K1 normalized to cerebellum [Rel-K1-Water and Rel-K1-PiB], and (11)C-PiB SRTM2-R1) and between delivery measures and (11)C-PiB retention, using the Bonferroni method for multiple-comparison correction. RESULTS: Primary analysis showed positive correlations (ρ ≈0.2-0.5) between (15)O-water K1 and (11)C-PiB K1 that did not survive Bonferroni adjustment. Significant positive correlations were found between Rel-K1-Water and Rel-K1-PiB and between Rel-K1-Water and (11)C-PiB SRTM2-R1 (ρ ≈0.5-0.8, P < 0.0036) across primary cortical regions. Secondary analysis showed few significant correlations between (11)C-PiB retention and relative (11)C-PiB delivery measures (but not (15)O-water delivery measures) in primary cortical areas that arose only after accounting for cerebrospinal fluid dilution. CONCLUSION: (11)C-PiB SRTM2-R1 is highly correlated with regional relative CBF, as measured by (15)O-water K1 normalized to cerebellum, and cross-sectional (11)C-PiB retention did not strongly depend on CBF across primary cortical regions. These results provide further support for potential dual-imaging assessments of regional brain status (i.e., amyloid-β load and relative CBF) through dynamic (11)C-PiB imaging.
UNLABELLED: The primary goal of this study was to assess the suitability of (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B ((11)C-PiB) blood-brain barrier delivery (K1) and relative delivery (R1) parameters as surrogate indices of cerebral blood flow (CBF), with a secondary goal of directly examining the extent to which simplified uptake measures of (11)C-PiB retention (amyloid-β load) may be influenced by CBF, in a cohort of controls and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: Nineteen participants (6 controls, 5 AD, 8 MCI) underwent MR imaging, (15)O-water PET, and (11)C-PiB PET in a single session. Fourteen regions of interest (including cerebellar reference region) were defined on MR imaging and applied to dynamic coregistered PET to generate time-activity curves. Multiple analysis approaches provided regional (15)O-water and (11)C-PiB measures of delivery and (11)C-PiB retention that included compartmental modeling distribution volume ratio (DVR), arterial- and reference-based Logan DVR, simplified reference tissue modeling 2 (SRTM2) DVR, and standardized uptake value ratios. Spearman correlation was performed among delivery measures (i.e., (15)O-water K1 and (11)C-PiB K1, relative K1 normalized to cerebellum [Rel-K1-Water and Rel-K1-PiB], and (11)C-PiB SRTM2-R1) and between delivery measures and (11)C-PiB retention, using the Bonferroni method for multiple-comparison correction. RESULTS: Primary analysis showed positive correlations (ρ ≈0.2-0.5) between (15)O-water K1 and (11)C-PiB K1 that did not survive Bonferroni adjustment. Significant positive correlations were found between Rel-K1-Water and Rel-K1-PiB and between Rel-K1-Water and (11)C-PiB SRTM2-R1 (ρ ≈0.5-0.8, P < 0.0036) across primary cortical regions. Secondary analysis showed few significant correlations between (11)C-PiB retention and relative (11)C-PiB delivery measures (but not (15)O-water delivery measures) in primary cortical areas that arose only after accounting for cerebrospinal fluid dilution. CONCLUSION: (11)C-PiB SRTM2-R1 is highly correlated with regional relative CBF, as measured by (15)O-water K1 normalized to cerebellum, and cross-sectional (11)C-PiB retention did not strongly depend on CBF across primary cortical regions. These results provide further support for potential dual-imaging assessments of regional brain status (i.e., amyloid-β load and relative CBF) through dynamic (11)C-PiB imaging.
Authors: M A Mintun; G N Larossa; Y I Sheline; C S Dence; S Y Lee; R H Mach; W E Klunk; C A Mathis; S T DeKosky; J C Morris Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-08-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Kerryn E Pike; Gaël Chételat; Kathryn A Ellis; Rachel S Mulligan; Pierrick Bourgeat; Uwe Ackermann; Gareth Jones; Cassandra Szoeke; Olivier Salvado; Ralph Martins; Graeme O'Keefe; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 10.422
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: Philipp T Meyer; Sabine Hellwig; Florian Amtage; Christof Rottenburger; Ursula Sahm; Peter Reuland; Wolfgang A Weber; Michael Hüll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nelleke Tolboom; Maqsood Yaqub; Ronald Boellaard; Gert Luurtsema; Albert D Windhorst; Philip Scheltens; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kerryn E Pike; Greg Savage; Victor L Villemagne; Steven Ng; Simon A Moss; Paul Maruff; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Brain Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Rebecca L McNamee; Seong-Hwan Yee; Julie C Price; William E Klunk; Bedda Rosario; Lisa Weissfeld; Scott Ziolko; Michael Berginc; Brian Lopresti; Steven Dekosky; Chester A Mathis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Howard Jay Aizenstein; Robert D Nebes; Judith A Saxton; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Scott K Ziolko; Jeffrey A James; Beth E Snitz; Patricia R Houck; Wenzhu Bi; Ann D Cohen; Brian J Lopresti; Steven T DeKosky; Edythe M Halligan; William E Klunk Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-11
Authors: Laura L Boles Ponto; David J Moser; Yusuf Menda; Emily L Harlynn; Sean D DeVries; Jacob J Oleson; Vincent A Magnotta; Susan K Schultz Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Jun Hua; SeungWook Lee; Nicholas I S Blair; Michael Wyss; Jiri M G van Bergen; Simon J Schreiner; Sonja M Kagerer; Sandra E Leh; Anton F Gietl; Valerie Treyer; Alfred Buck; Roger M Nitsch; Klaas P Pruessmann; Hanzhang Lu; Peter C M Van Zijl; Marilyn Albert; Christoph Hock; Paul G Unschuld Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Murat Bilgel; Lori Beason-Held; Yang An; Yun Zhou; Dean F Wong; Susan M Resnick Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Janusch Blautzik; Matthias Brendel; Julia Sauerbeck; Sebastian Kotz; Franziska Scheiwein; Peter Bartenstein; John Seibyl; Axel Rominger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tharick A Pascoal; Mira Chamoun; Elad Lax; Hsiao-Ying Wey; Monica Shin; Kok Pin Ng; Min Su Kang; Sulantha Mathotaarachchi; Andrea L Benedet; Joseph Therriault; Firoza Z Lussier; Frederick A Schroeder; Jonathan M DuBois; Baileigh G Hightower; Tonya M Gilbert; Nicole R Zürcher; Changning Wang; Robert Hopewell; Mallar Chakravarty; Melissa Savard; Emilie Thomas; Sara Mohaddes; Sarah Farzin; Alyssa Salaciak; Stephanie Tullo; A Claudio Cuello; Jean-Paul Soucy; Gassan Massarweh; Heungsun Hwang; Eliane Kobayashi; Bradley T Hyman; Bradford C Dickerson; Marie-Christine Guiot; Moshe Szyf; Serge Gauthier; Jacob M Hooker; Pedro Rosa-Neto Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Hayel Tuncel; Denise Visser; Maqsood Yaqub; Tessa Timmers; Emma E Wolters; Rik Ossenkoppele; Wiesje M van der Flier; Bart N M van Berckel; Ronald Boellaard; Sandeep S V Golla Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Fabio Raman; Yu-Hua Dean Fang; Sameera Grandhi; Charles F Murchison; Richard E Kennedy; John C Morris; Parinaz Massoumzadeh; Tammie Benzinger; Erik D Roberson; Jonathan McConathy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christin Y Sander; Stefano Bovo; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Daniel Albrecht; Hongping Deng; Vitaly Napadow; Julie C Price; Jacob M Hooker; Marco L Loggia Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 6.960