Suzanne L Baker1, Samuel N Lockhart2, Julie C Price3, Mark He2, Ronald H Huesman4, Daniel Schonhaut5, Jamie Faria4, Gil Rabinovici5, William J Jagust4,2. 1. Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Berkeley, California slbaker@lbl.gov. 2. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and. 4. Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Berkeley, California. 5. Memory and Aging Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
The goal of this paper was to evaluate the in vivo kinetics of the novel tau-specific PET radioligand 18F-AV-1451 in cognitively healthy control (HC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) subjects, using reference region analyses. METHODS: 18F-AV-1451 PET imaging was performed on 43 subjects (5 young HCs, 23 older HCs, and 15 AD subjects). Data were collected from 0 to 150 min after injection, with a break from 100 to 120 min. T1-weighted MR images were segmented using FreeSurfer to create 14 bilateral regions of interest (ROIs). In all analyses, cerebellar gray matter was used as the reference region. Nondisplaceable binding potentials (BPNDs) were calculated using the simplified reference tissue model (SRTM) and SRTM2; the Logan graphical analysis distribution volume ratio (DVR) was calculated for 30-150 min (DVR30-150). These measurements were compared with each other and used as reference standards for defining an appropriate 20-min window for the SUV ratio (SUVR). Pearson correlations were used to compare the reference standards to 20-min SUVRs (start times varied from 30 to 130 min), for all values, for ROIs with low 18F-AV-1451 binding (lROIs, mean of BPND + 1 and DVR30-150 < 1.5), and for ROIs with high 18F-AV-1451 binding (hROIs, mean of BPND + 1 and DVR30-150 > 1.5). RESULTS: SRTM2 BPND + 1 and DVR30-150 were in good agreement. Both were in agreement with SRTM BPND + 1 for lROIs but were greater than SRTM BPND + 1 for hROIs, resulting in a nonlinear relationship. hROI SUVRs increased from 80-100 to 120-140 min by 0.24 ± 0.15. The SUVR time interval resulting in the highest correlation and slope closest to 1 relative to the reference standards for all values was 120-140 min for hROIs, 60-80 min for lROIs, and 80-100 min for lROIs and hROIs. There was minimal difference between methods when statistical significance between ADs and HCs was calculated. CONCLUSION: Despite later time periods providing better agreement between reference standards and SUVRs for hROIs, a good compromise for studying lROIs and hROIs is SUVR80-100. The lack of SUVR plateau for hROIs highlights the importance of precise acquisition time for longitudinal assessment.
The goal of this paper was to evaluate the in vivo kinetics of the novel tau-specific PET radioligand 18F-AV-1451 in cognitively healthy control (HC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) subjects, using reference region analyses. METHODS: 18F-AV-1451 PET imaging was performed on 43 subjects (5 young HCs, 23 older HCs, and 15 AD subjects). Data were collected from 0 to 150 min after injection, with a break from 100 to 120 min. T1-weighted MR images were segmented using FreeSurfer to create 14 bilateral regions of interest (ROIs). In all analyses, cerebellar gray matter was used as the reference region. Nondisplaceable binding potentials (BPNDs) were calculated using the simplified reference tissue model (SRTM) and SRTM2; the Logan graphical analysis distribution volume ratio (DVR) was calculated for 30-150 min (DVR30-150). These measurements were compared with each other and used as reference standards for defining an appropriate 20-min window for the SUV ratio (SUVR). Pearson correlations were used to compare the reference standards to 20-min SUVRs (start times varied from 30 to 130 min), for all values, for ROIs with low 18F-AV-1451 binding (lROIs, mean of BPND + 1 and DVR30-150 < 1.5), and for ROIs with high 18F-AV-1451 binding (hROIs, mean of BPND + 1 and DVR30-150 > 1.5). RESULTS: SRTM2 BPND + 1 and DVR30-150 were in good agreement. Both were in agreement with SRTM BPND + 1 for lROIs but were greater than SRTM BPND + 1 for hROIs, resulting in a nonlinear relationship. hROI SUVRs increased from 80-100 to 120-140 min by 0.24 ± 0.15. The SUVR time interval resulting in the highest correlation and slope closest to 1 relative to the reference standards for all values was 120-140 min for hROIs, 60-80 min for lROIs, and 80-100 min for lROIs and hROIs. There was minimal difference between methods when statistical significance between ADs and HCs was calculated. CONCLUSION: Despite later time periods providing better agreement between reference standards and SUVRs for hROIs, a good compromise for studying lROIs and hROIs is SUVR80-100. The lack of SUVR plateau for hROIs highlights the importance of precise acquisition time for longitudinal assessment.
Authors: Nobuyuki Okamura; Shozo Furumoto; Michelle T Fodero-Tavoletti; Rachel S Mulligan; Ryuichi Harada; Paul Yates; Svetlana Pejoska; Yukitsuka Kudo; Colin L Masters; Kazuhiko Yanai; Christopher C Rowe; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Brain Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Chun-Fang Xia; Janna Arteaga; Gang Chen; Umesh Gangadharmath; Luis F Gomez; Dhanalakshmi Kasi; Chung Lam; Qianwa Liang; Changhui Liu; Vani P Mocharla; Fanrong Mu; Anjana Sinha; Helen Su; A Katrin Szardenings; Joseph C Walsh; Eric Wang; Chul Yu; Wei Zhang; Tieming Zhao; Hartmuth C Kolb Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Sergey Shcherbinin; Adam J Schwarz; Abhinay Joshi; Michael Navitsky; Matthew Flitter; William R Shankle; Michael D Devous; Mark A Mintun Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Aaron Schultz; Rebecca A Betensky; J Alex Becker; Jorge Sepulcre; Dorene Rentz; Elizabeth Mormino; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Rebecca Amariglio; Kate Papp; Gad Marshall; Mark Albers; Samantha Mauro; Lesley Pepin; Jonathan Alverio; Kelly Judge; Marlie Philiossaint; Timothy Shoup; Daniel Yokell; Bradford Dickerson; Teresa Gomez-Isla; Bradley Hyman; Neil Vasdev; Reisa Sperling Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: David T Chien; A Katrin Szardenings; Shadfar Bahri; Joseph C Walsh; Fanrong Mu; Chunfang Xia; William R Shankle; Alan J Lerner; Min-Ying Su; Arkadij Elizarov; Hartmuth C Kolb Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Michelle T Fodero-Tavoletti; Shozo Furumoto; Leanne Taylor; Catriona A McLean; Rachel S Mulligan; Ian Birchall; Ryuichi Harada; Colin L Masters; Kazuhiko Yanai; Yukitsuka Kudo; Christopher C Rowe; Nobuyuki Okamura; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Mark He; Suzanne L Baker; Vyoma D Shah; Samuel N Lockhart; William J Jagust Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Joseph R Winer; Anne Maass; Peter Pressman; Jordan Stiver; Daniel R Schonhaut; Suzanne L Baker; Joel Kramer; Gil D Rabinovici; William J Jagust Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Alexandre Bejanin; Daniel R Schonhaut; Renaud La Joie; Joel H Kramer; Suzanne L Baker; Natasha Sosa; Nagehan Ayakta; Averill Cantwell; Mustafa Janabi; Mariella Lauriola; James P O'Neil; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Zachary A Miller; Howard J Rosen; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Brain Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Anne Maass; Samuel N Lockhart; Theresa M Harrison; Rachel K Bell; Taylor Mellinger; Kaitlin Swinnerton; Suzanne L Baker; Gil D Rabinovici; William J Jagust Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Daniel R Schonhaut; Corey T McMillan; Salvatore Spina; Bradford C Dickerson; Andrew Siderowf; Michael D Devous; Richard Tsai; Joseph Winer; David S Russell; Irene Litvan; Erik D Roberson; William W Seeley; Lea T Grinberg; Joel H Kramer; Bruce L Miller; Peter Pressman; Ilya Nasrallah; Suzanne L Baker; Stephen N Gomperts; Keith A Johnson; Murray Grossman; William J Jagust; Adam L Boxer; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 10.422