M Edip Gurol1, J Alex Becker2, Panagiotis Fotiadis2, Grace Riley2, Kristin Schwab2, Keith A Johnson2, Steven M Greenberg2. 1. From the Hemorrhagic Stroke Research Center, Department of Neurology (M.E.G., P.F., G.R., K.S., S.M.G.), and Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (J.A.B., K.A.J.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. edip@mail.harvard.edu. 2. From the Hemorrhagic Stroke Research Center, Department of Neurology (M.E.G., P.F., G.R., K.S., S.M.G.), and Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (J.A.B., K.A.J.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that florbetapir, a Food and Drug Administration-approved PET tracer, could distinguish cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA)-related intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) from hypertensive ICH (HTN-ICH). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled survivors of primary ICH related to probable CAA (per Boston Criteria, n = 10) and HTN-ICH (n = 9) without dementia. All patients underwent florbetapir-PET and multimodal MRI, and patients with CAA had additional Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) PET. Amyloid burden was assessed quantitatively (standard uptake value ratio [SUVR]) and visually classified as positive or negative. RESULTS: The CAA and HTN-ICH groups had similar age (66.9 vs 67.1), sex, and leukoaraiosis volumes (31 vs 30 mL, all p > 0.8). Florbetapir uptake and PiB retention strongly correlated in patients with CAA both globally within cerebral cortex (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) and regionally in lobar cortices (all r > 0.8, all p ≤ 0.01). Mean global cortical florbetapir uptake was substantially higher in CAA than HTN-ICH (SUVR: 1.41 ± 0.17 vs 1.15 ± 0.08, p = 0.001), as was mean occipital SUVR (1.44 ± 0.12 vs 1.17 ± 0.08, p < 0.001), even after correcting for global SUVR (p = 0.03). Visual rating for positive/negative florbetapir demonstrated perfect interrater agreement (k = 1) and was positive for all 10 patients with CAA vs 1 of 9 HTN-ICH patients (sensitivity 100%, specificity 89%). CONCLUSIONS: Florbetapir appears to label vascular amyloid in patients with CAA-related ICH. The approved florbetapir binary visual reading method can have diagnostic value in appropriate clinical settings. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that florbetapir-PET provides a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66%-100%) and specificity of 89% (95% CI 51%-99%) for determination of probable CAA among cognitively normal patients.
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that florbetapir, a Food and Drug Administration-approved PET tracer, could distinguish cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA)-related intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) from hypertensive ICH (HTN-ICH). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled survivors of primary ICH related to probable CAA (per Boston Criteria, n = 10) and HTN-ICH (n = 9) without dementia. All patients underwent florbetapir-PET and multimodal MRI, and patients with CAA had additional Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) PET. Amyloid burden was assessed quantitatively (standard uptake value ratio [SUVR]) and visually classified as positive or negative. RESULTS: The CAA and HTN-ICH groups had similar age (66.9 vs 67.1), sex, and leukoaraiosis volumes (31 vs 30 mL, all p > 0.8). Florbetapir uptake and PiB retention strongly correlated in patients with CAA both globally within cerebral cortex (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) and regionally in lobar cortices (all r > 0.8, all p ≤ 0.01). Mean global cortical florbetapir uptake was substantially higher in CAA than HTN-ICH (SUVR: 1.41 ± 0.17 vs 1.15 ± 0.08, p = 0.001), as was mean occipital SUVR (1.44 ± 0.12 vs 1.17 ± 0.08, p < 0.001), even after correcting for global SUVR (p = 0.03). Visual rating for positive/negative florbetapir demonstrated perfect interrater agreement (k = 1) and was positive for all 10 patients with CAA vs 1 of 9 HTN-ICH patients (sensitivity 100%, specificity 89%). CONCLUSIONS: Florbetapir appears to label vascular amyloid in patients with CAA-related ICH. The approved florbetapir binary visual reading method can have diagnostic value in appropriate clinical settings. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that florbetapir-PET provides a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66%-100%) and specificity of 89% (95% CI 51%-99%) for determination of probable CAA among cognitively normal patients.
Authors: Gregory A Dierksen; Maureen E Skehan; Muhammad A Khan; Jed Jeng; R N Kaveer Nandigam; John A Becker; Ashok Kumar; Krista L Neal; Rebecca A Betensky; Matthew P Frosch; Jonathan Rosand; Keith A Johnson; Anand Viswanathan; David H Salat; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Matt Gregas; John A Becker; Catherine Kinnecom; David H Salat; Erin K Moran; Erin E Smith; Jonathan Rosand; Dorene M Rentz; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Steven T Dekosky; Alan J Fischman; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: M E Gurol; M C Irizarry; E E Smith; S Raju; R Diaz-Arrastia; T Bottiglieri; J Rosand; J H Growdon; S M Greenberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: M Edip Gurol; Gregory Dierksen; Rebecca Betensky; Christopher Gidicsin; Amy Halpin; Alex Becker; Jeremy Carmasin; Alison Ayres; Kristin Schwab; Anand Viswanathan; David Salat; Jonathan Rosand; Keith A Johnson; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Andreas Charidimou; Gregoire Boulouis; Kellen Haley; Eitan Auriel; Ellis S van Etten; Panagiotis Fotiadis; Yael Reijmer; Alison Ayres; Anastasia Vashkevich; Zora Y Dipucchio; Kristin M Schwab; Sergi Martinez-Ramirez; Jonathan Rosand; Anand Viswanathan; Steven M Greenberg; M Edip Gurol Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Steven A Lubitz; Kenneth A Bauer; Emelia J Benjamin; Richard W Besdine; Daniel E Forman; Mahmut E Gurol; Vivek Y Reddy; Daniel E Singer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Steven M Greenberg; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Geert Jan Biessels; Mark van Buchem; Charlotte Cordonnier; Jin-Moo Lee; Joan Montaner; Julie A Schneider; Eric E Smith; Meike Vernooij; David J Werring Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Hyemin Jang; Young Kyoung Jang; Hee Jin Kim; David John Werring; Jin San Lee; Yeong Sim Choe; Seongbeom Park; Juyeon Lee; Ko Woon Kim; Yeshin Kim; Soo Hyun Cho; Si Eun Kim; Seung Joo Kim; Andreas Charidimou; Duk L Na; Sang Won Seo Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Aaron P Schultz; Reina W Kloet; Hamid R Sohrabi; Louise van der Weerd; Sanneke van Rooden; Marieke J H Wermer; Laure Grand Moursel; Maqsood Yaqub; Bart N M van Berckel; Pratishtha Chatterjee; Samantha L Gardener; Kevin Taddei; Anne M Fagan; Tammie L Benzinger; John C Morris; Reisa Sperling; Keith Johnson; Randall J Bateman; M Edip Gurol; Mark A van Buchem; Ralph Martins; Jasmeer P Chhatwal; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Andreas Charidimou; Gregoire Boulouis; M Edip Gurol; Cenk Ayata; Brian J Bacskai; Matthew P Frosch; Anand Viswanathan; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Brain Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Andreas Charidimou; Anne-Katrin Giese; Marco Pasi; Susanne J van Veluw; Li Xiong; Panagiotis Fotiadis; Sandro Marini; Markus D Schirmer; Anand Viswanathan Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Elissaios Karageorgiou; Georges Naasan; Samuel J Pleasure; Sanda Alexandrescu; Jeffrey M Gelfand; Gautam Tammewar; Bruce L Miller; Gil D Rabinovici; Lea T Grinberg Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2017-10
Authors: Nicolas Raposo; Mélanie Planton; Pierre Payoux; Patrice Péran; Jean François Albucher; Lionel Calviere; Alain Viguier; Vanessa Rousseau; Anne Hitzel; François Chollet; Jean Marc Olivot; Fabrice Bonneville; Jérémie Pariente Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 9.236