Christopher G Schwarz1, Matthew L Senjem2, Jeffrey L Gunter2, Nirubol Tosakulwong3, Stephen D Weigand3, Bradley J Kemp4, Anthony J Spychalla4, Prashanthi Vemuri4, Ronald C Petersen5, Val J Lowe4, Clifford R Jack4. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States. Electronic address: schwarz.christopher@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States; Department of Information Technology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States. 3. Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States. 4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States. 5. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States.
Abstract
Quantitative measurements of change in β-amyloid load from Positron Emission Tomography (PET) images play a critical role in clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies of Alzheimer's disease. These measurements are strongly affected by methodological differences between implementations, including choice of reference region and use of partial volume correction, but there is a lack of consensus for an optimal method. Previous works have examined some relevant variables under varying criteria, but interactions between them prevent choosing a method via combined meta-analysis. In this work, we present a thorough comparison of methods to measure change in β-amyloid over time using Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) PET imaging. METHODS: We compare 1,024 different automated software pipeline implementations with varying methodological choices according to four quality metrics calculated over three-timepoint longitudinal trajectories of 129 subjects: reliability (straightness/variance); plausibility (lack of negative slopes); ability to predict accumulator/non-accumulator status from baseline value; and correlation between change in β-amyloid and change in Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: From this analysis, we show that an optimal longitudinal measure of β-amyloid from PiB should use a reference region that includes a combination of voxels in the supratentorial white matter and those in the whole cerebellum, measured using two-class partial volume correction in the voxel space of each subject's corresponding anatomical MR image.
Quantitative measurements of change in β-amyloid load from Positron Emission Tomography (PET) images play a critical role in clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies of Alzheimer's disease. These measurements are strongly affected by methodological differences between implementations, including choice of reference region and use of partial volume correction, but there is a lack of consensus for an optimal method. Previous works have examined some relevant variables under varying criteria, but interactions between them prevent choosing a method via combined meta-analysis. In this work, we present a thorough comparison of methods to measure change in β-amyloid over time using Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) PET imaging. METHODS: We compare 1,024 different automated software pipeline implementations with varying methodological choices according to four quality metrics calculated over three-timepoint longitudinal trajectories of 129 subjects: reliability (straightness/variance); plausibility (lack of negative slopes); ability to predict accumulator/non-accumulator status from baseline value; and correlation between change in β-amyloid and change in Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: From this analysis, we show that an optimal longitudinal measure of β-amyloid from PiB should use a reference region that includes a combination of voxels in the supratentorial white matter and those in the whole cerebellum, measured using two-class partial volume correction in the voxel space of each subject's corresponding anatomical MR image.
Authors: Nicolas Villain; Gaël Chételat; Blandine Grassiot; Pierrick Bourgeat; Gareth Jones; Kathryn A Ellis; David Ames; Ralph N Martins; Francis Eustache; Olivier Salvado; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Brain Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Mark E Schmidt; Ping Chiao; Gregory Klein; Dawn Matthews; Lennart Thurfjell; Patricia E Cole; Richard Margolin; Susan Landau; Norman L Foster; N Scott Mason; Susan De Santi; Joyce Suhy; Robert A Koeppe; William Jagust Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 21.566
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: Yi Su; Tyler M Blazey; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Daniel S Marcus; Beau M Ances; Randall J Bateman; Nigel J Cairns; Patricia Aldea; Lisa Cash; Jon J Christensen; Karl Friedrichsen; Russ C Hornbeck; Angela M Farrar; Christopher J Owen; Richard Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; William Klunk; Julie C Price; Paul M Thompson; Bernadino Ghetti; Andrew J Saykin; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Peter R Schofield; Virginia Buckles; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 6.556
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: 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: Val J Lowe; Emily S Lundt; Matthew L Senjem; Christopher G Schwarz; Hoon-Ki Min; Scott A Przybelski; Kejal Kantarci; David Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mony J de Leon; Yi Li; Nobuyuki Okamura; Wai H Tsui; Les A Saint-Louis; Lidia Glodzik; Ricardo S Osorio; Juan Fortea; Tracy Butler; Elizabeth Pirraglia; Silvia Fossati; Hee-Jin Kim; Roxana O Carare; Maiken Nedergaard; Helene Benveniste; Henry Rusinek Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Cyrille Sur; Katarzyna Adamczuk; David Scott; James Kost; Mehul Sampat; Christopher Buckley; Gill Farrar; Ben Newton; Joyce Suhy; Idriss Bennacef; Michael F Egan Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Dana L Tudorascu; Stewart J Anderson; Davneet S Minhas; Zheming Yu; Diane Comer; Patrick Lao; Sigan Hartley; Charles M Laymon; Beth E Snitz; Brian J Lopresti; Sterling Johnson; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; Howard J Aizenstein; William E Klunk; Benjamin L Handen; Brad T Christian; Ann D Cohen Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Theresa M Harrison; Renaud La Joie; Anne Maass; Suzanne L Baker; Kaitlin Swinnerton; Laura Fenton; Taylor J Mellinger; Lauren Edwards; Julie Pham; Bruce L Miller; Gil D Rabinovici; William J Jagust Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Charles M Laymon; Davneet S Minhas; Sarah K Royse; Howard J Aizenstein; Ann D Cohen; Dana L Tudorascu; William E Klunk Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-07-20
Authors: Juraj Sprung; David O Warner; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke; Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; David P Martin; Andrew C Hanson; Darrell R Schroeder; Scott A Przybelski; Phillip J Schulte; Toby N Weingarten; Prashanthi Vemuri Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 9.166