| Literature DB >> 27955679 |
Milos D Ikonomovic1,2,3, Chris J Buckley4, Kerstin Heurling5,6, Paul Sherwin7, Paul A Jones4, Michelle Zanette7, Chester A Mathis8, William E Klunk2, Aruna Chakrabarty9, James Ironside10, Azzam Ismail9, Colin Smith11, Dietmar R Thal12,13, Thomas G Beach14, Gill Farrar4, Adrian P L Smith15.
Abstract
In vivo imaging of fibrillar β-amyloid deposits may assist clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), aid treatment selection for patients, assist clinical trials of therapeutic drugs through subject selection, and be used as an outcome measure. A recent phase III trial of [18F]flutemetamol positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 106 end-of-life subjects demonstrated the ability to identify fibrillar β-amyloid by comparing in vivo PET to post-mortem histopathology. Post-mortem analyses demonstrated a broad and continuous spectrum of β-amyloid pathology in AD and other dementing and non-dementing disease groups. The GE067-026 trial demonstrated 91% sensitivity and 90% specificity of [18F]flutemetamol PET by majority read for the presence of moderate or frequent plaques. The probability of an abnormal [18F]flutemetamol scan increased with neocortical plaque density and AD diagnosis. All dementia cases with non-AD neurodegenerative diseases and those without histopathological features of β-amyloid deposits were [18F]flutemetamol negative. Majority PET assessments accurately reflected the amyloid plaque burden in 90% of cases. However, ten cases demonstrated a mismatch between PET image interpretations and post-mortem findings. Although tracer retention was best associated with amyloid in neuritic plaques, amyloid in diffuse plaques and cerebral amyloid angiopathy best explain three [18F]flutemetamol positive cases with mismatched (sparse) neuritic plaque burden. Advanced cortical atrophy was associated with the seven false negative [18F]flutemetamol images. The interpretation of images from pathologically equivocal cases was associated with low reader confidence and inter-reader agreement. Our results support that amyloid in neuritic plaque burden is the primary form of β-amyloid pathology detectable with [18F]flutemetamol PET imaging. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01165554. Registered June 21, 2010; NCT02090855. Registered March 11, 2014.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Amyloid; Flutemetamol; Neuropathology (4-6 allowed); PET
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27955679 PMCID: PMC5154022 DOI: 10.1186/s40478-016-0399-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Neuropathol Commun ISSN: 2051-5960 Impact factor: 7.801
Bielschowsky assessments of neuritic plaque densities
| Algorithm | mCERADSOT | mCERADmode | CERAD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regions assessed | MFL, MTG, STG, IPL, ACG, PCG, PRC, PVC | MFL, MTG, STG, IPL | MFL, MTG, STG, IPL |
| Regional assessments | 8 regional averages (mean) of 30 intra-regional numerica assessments (each 0 ≤ x ≤ 3) | 4 regional averages (mode) of 30 intra-regional categorical assessments (none, sparse, moderate, frequent) | 1 global assessment from region of highest involvement (none, sparse, moderate, frequent) |
| Case dichotomy | Any region >1.5 is | Any region = moderate or frequent is | moderate or frequent is |
MFL midfrontal lobe, MTG middle temporal gyrus, STG superior temporal gyrus, IPL inferior parietal lobe, ACG anterior cingulate gyrus, PCG posterior cingulate gyrus, PRC Precuneus, PVC primary visual cortex
aEach assessment was recorded as 0 = none (no plaques per 100x field of view), 1 = sparse (1-5 plaques), 2 = moderate (6-19 plaques) or 3 = frequent (20 or more plaques). A total of 240 cortical assessments were recorded for each case
Subject demographic information and data
| Demographics | Neuropathology | Imaging | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Age | Sex | Timea | Dementiab | mCsc | Aβd | ADe | CERADf | Braakg | Amyloid phaseh | Diagnosesi | SUVRj | PETmajk |
| 1 | 73 | F | 360 | Yes | 0.0 | n.d. | Normal | - | II | 1 | Inf TDPl | 1.13 | Normal |
| 2 | 84 | M | 17 | Yes | 0.0 | 0.3 | Normal | - | I | 0 | Normal | 1.18 | Normal |
| 3 | 83 | M | 568 | No | 0.0 | n.d. | Normal | - | IV | 1 | LBD | 1.17 | Normal |
| 4 | 91 | M | 130 | Yes | 0.0 | 0.9 | Normal | - | 0 | 0 | PSP VAD | 1.34 | Normal |
| 5 | 63 | M | 433 | No | 0.0 | n.d. | Low | - | II | 1 | PSP | 1.42 | Normal |
| 6 | 76 | F | 145 | Yes | 0.0 | n.d. | Normal | - | II | 1 | LBD VAD | 1.22 | Normal |
| 7 | 70 | M | 16 | No | 0.0 | n.d. | Normal | - | 0 | 0 | Normal | 1.44 | Normal |
| 8 | 67 | M | 32 | No | 0.0 | n.d. | Normal | - | I | 0 | Normal | 1.37 | Normal |
| 9 | 80 | M | 131 | Yes | 0.0 | n.d. | NA | - | III | 0 | TPD | 1.26 | Normal |
| 10 | 61 | F | 34 | No | 0.0 | n.d. | Normal | - | 0 | 1 | Normal | 1.67 | Normal |
| 11 | 65 | F | 393 | No | 0.0 | n.d. | Normal | - | III | 1 | AC | 1.21 | Normal |
| 12 | 60 | M | 374 | No | 0.0 | n.d. | Low | - | III | 1 | VAD | 1.34 | Normal |
| 13 | 74 | M | 170 | Yes | 0.1 | 8.1 | Normal | - | 0 | 2 | VAD | 1.12 | Normal |
| 14 | 66 | M | 155 | No | 0.1 | n.d. | Normal | - | 0 | 0 | AC | 1.3 | Normal |
| 15 | 76 | F | 10 | Yes | 0.1 | 0.2 | Normal | - | I | 2 | Normal | 1.56 | Normal |
| 16 | 63 | M | 12 | No | 0.1 | n.d. | Normal | - | 0 | 0 | Normal | 1.6 | Normal |
| 17 | 73 | F | 105 | Yes | 0.5 | 0.4 | Normal | - | V | 1 | TPD | 1.34 | Normal |
| 18 | 90 | F | 115 | Yes | 0.0 | n.d. | Low | S | III | 1 | Inf AS | 1.4 | Normal |
| 19 | 89 | F | 78 | No | 0.3 | n.d. | Int | S | IV | 2 | CAA AD | 1.25 | Normal |
| 20 | 82 | F | 24 | Yes | 0.4 | 0 | Low | S | III | 1 | LBD | 1.72 | Normal |
| 21 | 92 | F | 210 | Yes | 0.7 | n.d. | Normal | S | II | 4 | CAA PD | 1.55 | Normal |
| 22 | 84 | F | 69 | Yes | 1.1 | 1 | Int | S | II | 2 | Inf | 1.36 | Normal |
| 23 | 72 | M | 142 | Yes | 1.3 | n.d. | Normal | S | 0 | 3 | FTD | 1.01 | Normal |
| 24 | 87 | F | 76 | Yes | 1.4 | 2 | Low | S | I | 3 | VAD | 1.57 | Normal |
| 25 | 87 | F | 137 | Yes | 1.5 | n.d. | Normal | S | 0 | 2 | AC AS | 1.53 | Normal |
| 26 | 60 | M | 11 | Yes | 1.7 | n.d. | Low | S | II | 4 | CAA | 1.08 | Normal |
| 27 | 81 | M | 189 | No | 1.8 | n.d. | Normal | S | I | 4 | ND | 1.6 | Normal |
| 28 | 92 | F | 212 | Yes | 2.1 | n.d. | Int | S | III | 3 | TDPl | 1.26 | Normal |
| 29 | 87 | F | 131 | Yes | 1.4 | 8.1 | Low | S | IV | 5 | LBD | 1.95 | Abnormal |
| 30 | 96 | F | 630 | Yes | 1.9 | n.d. | High | S | VI | 5 | AD | 2.15 | Abnormal |
| 31 | 92 | F | 132 | Yes | 1.9 | n.d. | Low | S | III | 4 | LBD | 2.72 | Abnormal |
| 32 | 89 | F | 311 | Yes | 2.0 | n.d. | Int | S | III | 5 | AD CAA VAD | 2.33 | Abnormal |
| 33 | 88 | F | 118 | Yes | 2.1 | n.d. | Low | S | II | 4 | Inf LBD AS | 3.14 | Abnormal |
| 34 | 80 | M | 2 | Yes | 2.1 | 7.6 | High | S | VI | 5 | AD LBD | 2.1 | Abnormal |
| 35 | 94 | F | 19 | Yes | 2.1 | 7.7 | Int | S | III | 5 | AD | 1.95 | Abnormal |
| 36 | 88 | F | 329 | Yes | 2.1 | n.d. | High | S | V | 5 | AD | 2.84 | Abnormal |
| 37 | 74 | F | 550 | Yes | 2.8 | n.d. | High | S | VI | 5 | AD | 2.23 | Abnormal |
| 38 | 86 | M | 19 | No | 1.4 | 2.3 | Int | M | III | 3 | AD | 1.45 | Normal |
| 39 | 75 | M | 64 | Yes | 1.4 | 1.4 | Int | M | II | 3 | Inf LBD | 1.23 | Normal |
| 40 | 84 | M | 349 | Yes | 1.6 | n.d. | Int | M | V | 3 | AD LBD AS VAD Ath | 1.73 | Normal |
| 41 | 93 | M | 323 | No | 1.9 | n.d. | Low | M | II | 3 | LBD | 1.36 | Normal |
| 42 | 87 | M | 22 | No | 2.7 | 4 | Int | M | IV | 4 | AD | 2.04 | Normal |
| 43 | 86 | F | 193 | Yes | 0.3 | 9.4 | Low | M | III | 4 | LBD | 2.07 | Abnormal |
| 44 | 76 | M | 84 | Yes | 1.5 | 10.3 | Low | M | II | 3 | LBD | 1.87 | Abnormal |
| 45 | 75 | M | 373 | Yes | 1.6 | n.d. | Int | M | IV | 5 | AD CAA | 1.48 | Abnormal |
| 46 | 82 | F | 127 | Yes | 1.7 | n.d. | Int | M | IV | 4 | AD LBD | 2.32 | Abnormal |
| 47 | 86 | M | 395 | Yes | 1.8 | n.d. | High | M | V | 5 | AD | 2.83 | Abnormal |
| 48 | 93 | F | 500 | Yes | 1.8 | n.d. | Int | M | V | 3 | AD AS VAD | 1.6 | Abnormal |
| 49 | 84 | M | 45 | Yes | 1.8 | n.d. | Low | M | II | 3 | VAD | 1.85 | Abnormal |
| 50 | 93 | F | 243 | Yes | 1.9 | n.d. | High | M | VI | 5 | AD | 2.72 | Abnormal |
| 51 | 93 | F | 755 | Yes | 2.0 | n.d. | High | M | IV | 5 | AD | 2.2 | Abnormal |
| 52 | 80 | M | 276 | Yes | 2.0 | n.d. | High | M | VI | 4 | AD | 2.33 | Abnormal |
| 53 | 90 | M | 308 | Yes | 2.1 | n.d. | Low | M | II | 4 | LBD | 2.19 | Abnormal |
| 54 | 78 | M | 62 | Yes | 2.1 | 10.1 | High | M | VI | 5 | AD LBD | 2.86 | Abnormal |
| 55 | 86 | F | 747 | Yes | 2.1 | n.d. | Int | M | IV | 3 | AD CAA | 1.81 | Abnormal |
| 56 | 73 | F | 295 | No | 2.2 | n.d. | Low | M | I | 3 | LBD | 1.76 | Abnormal |
| 57 | 87 | F | 318 | Yes | 2.2 | n.d. | Int | M | III | 5 | AD AS VAD Ath | 2.26 | Abnormal |
| 58 | 88 | F | 266 | Yes | 2.2 | n.d. | Int | M | III | 4 | AD LBD | 1.91 | Abnormal |
| 59 | 88 | F | 79 | Yes | 2.3 | 17.6 | High | M | VI | 5 | AD | 1.67 | Abnormal |
| 60 | 93 | F | 396 | Yes | 2.3 | n.d. | High | M | VI | 5 | AD CAA Inf | 3.08 | Abnormal |
| 61 | 85 | M | 60 | No | 2.4 | 14.7 | High | M | VI | 5 | CAA AD VAD | 2.81 | Abnormal |
| 62 | 91 | M | 30 | Yes | 2.4 | 2.9 | High | M | V | 4 | AD | 1.86 | Abnormal |
| 63 | 95 | F | 15 | Yes | 2.4 | 7.5 | High | M | VI | 5 | AD | 1.89 | Abnormal |
| 64 | 79 | M | 42 | No | 2.4 | n.d. | Int | M | III | 4 | CAA mCa AD | 2.44 | Abnormal |
| 65 | 81 | F | 184 | Yes | 2.5 | n.d. | Int | M | IV | 3 | LBD | 1.66 | Abnormal |
| 66 | 84 | F | 193 | Yes | 2.6 | n.d. | High | M | V | 5 | AD | 2.4 | Abnormal |
| 67 | 72 | M | 268 | Yes | 2.7 | n.d. | High | M | VI | 5 | AD VAD | 2.07 | Abnormal |
| 68 | 63 | M | 342 | Yes | 2.8 | n.d. | High | M | VI | 5 | AD AS VAD | 1.94 | Abnormal |
| 69 | 89 | F | 115 | Yes | 3.0 | n.d. | High | M | VI | 5 | AD CAA LBD AS | 2.39 | Abnormal |
| 70 | 83 | F | 611 | Yes | 1.8 | n.d. | Low | F | I | 4 | AS CAA VAD TDPl | 1.87 | Normal |
| 71 | 84 | F | 189 | No | 1.7 | n.d. | Int | F | 0 | 3 | CAA Inf VAD AD | 2.02 | Abnormal |
| 72 | 82 | M | 397 | Yes | 1.9 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD CAA VAD | 2.41 | Abnormal |
| 73 | 86 | F | 155 | Yes | 2.0 | n.d. | High | F | V | 5 | AD | 2.43 | Abnormal |
| 74 | 93 | F | 594 | Yes | 2.0 | n.d. | High | F | IV | 5 | AD | 2.46 | Abnormal |
| 75 | 90 | F | 538 | Yes | 2.0 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 4 | AD CAA AS VAD | 2.78 | Abnormal |
| 76 | 78 | F | 180 | Yes | 2.2 | n.d. | Normal | F | 0 | 4 | MSA | 2.03 | Abnormal |
| 77 | 93 | F | 200 | Yes | 2.2 | n.d. | High | F | V | 5 | AD AS CAA LBD VAD | 2.42 | Abnormal |
| 78 | 78 | F | 125 | Yes | 2.2 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD LBD | 2.12 | Abnormal |
| 79 | 72 | M | 1 | Yes | 2.4 | 11.4 | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.37 | Abnormal |
| 80 | 76 | F | 27 | Yes | 2.4 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD CAA | 1.83 | Abnormal |
| 81 | 77 | F | 11 | Yes | 2.4 | 8.9 | High | F | VI | 4 | AD | 1.59 | Abnormal |
| 82 | 91 | F | 55 | Yes | 2.4 | 11.2 | High | F | VI | 4 | AD CAA | 2.2 | Abnormal |
| 83 | 81 | M | 204 | Yes | 2.4 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 4 | AD CAA LBD | 2.41 | Abnormal |
| 84 | 82 | M | 15 | Yes | 2.5 | 6.9 | High | F | VI | 4 | AD CAA | 2.23 | Abnormal |
| 85 | 83 | M | 34 | Yes | 2.5 | 8.5 | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.6 | Abnormal |
| 86 | 90 | F | 51 | Yes | 2.5 | 12.2 | High | F | VI | 4 | AD | 2.35 | Abnormal |
| 87 | 73 | F | 27 | Yes | 2.5 | 9.6 | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.23 | Abnormal |
| 88 | 87 | M | 1 | Yes | 2.5 | 7.8 | High | F | IV | 4 | AD CAA | 2.1 | Abnormal |
| 89 | 89 | F | 768 | Yes | 2.5 | n.d. | High | F | V | 5 | AD CAA LBD AS | 1.93 | Abnormal |
| 90 | 79 | M | 332 | Yes | 2.5 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD CAA LBD | 2.24 | Abnormal |
| 91 | 80 | M | 0 | Yes | 2.6 | 7.9 | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2 | Abnormal |
| 92 | 79 | F | 422 | Yes | 2.6 | n.d. | High | F | V | 5 | AD CAA LBD AS VAD HC | 2.38 | Abnormal |
| 93 | 87 | M | 106 | Yes | 2.6 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.2 | Abnormal |
| 94 | 66 | F | 139 | Yes | 2.7 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.37 | Abnormal |
| 95 | 84 | M | 181 | Yes | 2.7 | n.d. | High | F | V | 4 | AD LBD | 2.75 | Abnormal |
| 96 | 87 | M | 769 | Yes | 2.7 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD CAA LBD VAD | 2.5 | Abnormal |
| 97 | 71 | M | 305 | Yes | 2.7 | n.d. | High | F | V | 5 | AD CAA | 2.47 | Abnormal |
| 98 | 72 | F | 565 | Yes | 2.7 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD CAA LBD | 2.58 | Abnormal |
| 99 | 85 | M | 846 | Yes | 2.8 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD VAD | 2.01 | Abnormal |
| 100 | 84 | F | 198 | Yes | 2.8 | 6.3 | High | F | VI | 4 | AD | 1.48 | Abnormal |
| 101 | 85 | F | 436 | Yes | 2.9 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.65 | Abnormal |
| 102 | 75 | F | 66 | Yes | 2.9 | 10.6 | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.47 | Abnormal |
| 103 | 87 | M | 493 | No | 2.9 | n.d. | High | F | IV | 5 | CAA LBD AD | 2.42 | Abnormal |
| 104 | 86 | F | 127 | Yes | 3.0 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.9 | Abnormal |
| 105 | 81 | M | 171 | Yes | 3.0 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.34 | Abnormal |
| 106 | 63 | M | 562 | Yes | 3.0 | n.d. | High | F | VI | 5 | AD | 2.72 | Abnormal |
Subjects are ranked by CERAD neuritic plaque frequency and then by mCERADSOT. AC ageing changes, AD Alzheimer’s disease (high or intermediate likelihood by National Institute of Ageing-Reagan Institute criteria), AS arteriosclerosis or arteriolosclerosis, Ath atherosclerosis, CAA cerebral amyloid angiopathy, FTD frontotemporal lobar degeneration, HC hydrocephalus, Inf infarct, LBD Lewy body disease, mCa metastatic carcinoma, MSA multisystem atrophy, ND neurofibrillary degeneration, PD Parkinson’s disease, PSP progressive supranuclear palsy, SUVR standard retention value ratio, TDP+ TDP43 immunopositivity, TPD tangle-predominant dementia, VSD vascular disease not otherwise specified
aTime between PET imaging and death in days
bDementia recorded in the study medical history
cmCERADSOT; maximal regional mean score determining Standard of Truth assignation as abnormal if > 1.5
dPercentage area of grey matter stained positively by amyloid β immunohistochemistry (4G8) determined only on a subset (32 subjects) of the cohort
eAlzheimer’s Disease likelihood recorded by a neuropathologist against National Institute of Ageing-Reagan Institute criteria [26] but blinded to dementia status
fCERAD neuritic plaque frequency recorded during neuropathology diagnoses (N: none; S: sparse; M: moderate; F: frequent)
gBraak neurofibrillary tangle stage recorded during neuropathology diagnosis
hAmyloid phase [25, 58]
iNeuropathologist’s diagnoses blinded to clinical data. Note: co-incident plaque burden may be present in non-AD diagnoses
jComposite SUVR determined from bilateral measures and normalised to cerebellum as the reference region
kMajority PET image evaluation
lTDP43 immunopositivity was recorded at the site neuropathology laboratories, not as part of the diagnoses for the GE studies. This analysis was not performed on all subjects
Fig. 1The GE067-026 cohort contained a broad and continuous spectrum of neocortical neuritic plaque burden. Panel a. Subjects ranked by the maximal mCERADSOT score for CERAD regions demonstrating a number of cases where dichotomy was based on a burden close to the threshold of 1.5. (cases were determined to be abnormal if any regional score was greater than 1.5, i.e. if the upper ‘whiskers’ in the plot are over 1.5). Most disparities between pathology and PET dichotomy as abnormal or normal occur in cases where the neuritic plaque mCERADSOT score is close to the threshold. Downward arrowheads indicate abnormal cases that were assessed as normal by PET (false negatives) and asterisks indicate normal cases assessed as abnormal (false positives). Panel b. The spread of cases categorised by CERAD neuritic plaque frequency
Fig. 3PET images and representative histopathology for a range of subjects including some disparity cases (PET images are representative Rainbow colour scale, axial and parasagittal slices. BIE status and results for the 5 readers (N = normal, A = abnormal). A representative photomicrograph of β-amyloid IHC (frontal lobe) with % area (if determined), representative photomicrograph of Bielschowsky silver stain (frontal lobe) and Bielschowsky score (original magnification 100x for both); Braak stage of neurofibrillary tangles and overall neuropathological diagnosis, including AD likelihood (NIA-RI criteria). Note: the photomicrographs of the frontal lobe may not accurately represent the pathology of other regions
Fig. 2The probability that the PET image is interpreted as positive increases with cortical neuritic plaque burden. Panel a . The probability (0-1) of a PET positive assessment increases with CERAD neuritic plaque frequency (N = 106). Panel b . The probability of PET positive image assessment by neocortical regional mCERADSOT score (N = 424, 4 neocortical regions per case; frontal, temporal, parietal and posterior cingulate/precuneus). Panel c & d. The probability of PET positive image assessment increases by AD diagnosis against the NIA-AA (Panel c) and NIA-RI criteria (Panel d). For all panels, boxes represent mean +/- 1 standard error and whiskers represent 95% confidence interval. Open circles represent outlier values and asterisks represent extreme values (see Materials and methods for details)
Fig. 6Neocortical diffuse and neuritic plaque frequency and probability of PET positive interpretation increases with β-amyloid phase. Amyloid phase represents a progression of plaque deposition with advancing AD starting in the neocortex (phase 0-2) and progressing into the midbrain (phase 3) and hindbrain (phase 5). By phase 4, neocortical neuritic plaques are sufficiently abundant to be detectable by PET imaging. Panel a. The abundance of both diffuse and neuritic plaques increase with advancing amyloid phase. The plots represent mean neocortical plaque frequencies (0 = none, 1 = sparse, 2 = moderate and 3 = frequent) per amyloid phase and plaque frequency is determined by the CERAD single point estimate for each subject (N = 106). Panel b . Neocortical plaque frequencies as determined by mCERADSOT using multiple measures per region (N = 106). Note three outliers (solid black circles) in phase 4/5 with mCERADSOT below 1.5 meaning that these cases were considered normal by mCERADSOT but abnormal by amyloid phase. Two of these cases (A and C) were false positives by majority, while B was true negative by majority, but only by a 3:2 reader split. Panel c . The probability of positive global PET assessment increases with amyloid phase (N = 5 for each subject, N = 35, 50, 25, 70, 120 and 230 for phases 0–5 respectively). For all panels, boxes represent mean +/- 1 standard error and whiskers represent 95% confidence interval. Open circles represent outlier values and asterisks represent extreme values (see Materials and methods for details)
Fig. 7CAA contributes weakly to PET cortical positivity. In amyloid phase 3 cases, where cortical neuritic plaque load is borderline (Panel a), PET assessment as abnormal is more likely (P = 0.0001, Kuskal Wallis test) in the presence of CAA (Panel b) and SUVR is elevated (Panel c, P < 0.05 Spearman). Panel d. Probability of positive BIE assessment for all subjects demonstrating that this analysis is only possible in cases with a modest plaque burden (Moderate or phase 3 cases) because of a lack of amyloid angiopathy in phase 0–2 and certain cortical positivity due to abundant cortical neuritic plaques in Phase 4 and 5. Panel e. A similar pattern if observed with regional analysis (frontal, temporal, parietal and striatum). It is likely that this effect is subtle and additive to a neocortical plaque burden already close to the threshold. Boxes represent mean +/- 1 standard error and whiskers represent 95% confidence interval. Open circles represent outlier values and asterisks represent extreme values (see Materials and methods for details)
Fig. 4Inter-reader agreement and reader confidence are decreased in cases with a plaque burden close to the threshold of PET detection. Panel a shows inter-reader agreement across the spectrum of mCERADSOT scores with values lowest about the 1.5 threshold. The transition from amyloid phase 2 to phase 3 is associated with neocortical plaque burden between sparse and moderate (see Fig. 4) and both inter-reader agreement (Panel b) and reader confidence (Panel c) is lowest in phase 3 (P < 0.001 for both data sets, Kruskal Wallis test). Inter-reader agreement was determined as Fleiss’ kappa coefficient P (see text for details) and for 5 readers is 1 when all 5 readers are in agreement, 0.6 when the agreement is 4:1 and 0.4 when the agreement is split 3:2. Confidence was recorded as a 5 point scale (1–5) with 5 being most certain and 1 being the least certain. For all panels, boxes represent mean +/- 1 standard error and whiskers represent 95% confidence interval. Open circles represent outlier values and asterisks represent extreme values (see Materials and methods for details)
Fig. 5Cases in which there was disparity between the pathology dichotomy as normal or abnormal and PET negative or positive were associated with low reader confidence (Panel a) and inter-reader agreement (Panel b). False-negative cases (FN) where the majority interpreted the PET image as negative in the presence of an abnormal neuritic plaque burden were associated with low inter-reader agreement (P < 0.0001, Kruskal Wallis test). False-positive (FP) cases were associated with low reader confidence (P < 0.0001, Kruskal Wallis test). Inter-reader agreement was determined as Fleiss’ kappa coefficient P (see text for details) which for 5 readers is 1 when all 5 readers are in agreement, 0.6 when the agreement is 4:1 and 0.4 when the agreement is split 3:2. Reader confidence was recorded as a 5-point scale (1-5) with 5 being most certain and 1 being the least certain. Panel c In the 3 false-positive cases, although neuritic plaque frequency was below threshold, β-amyloid in the form of diffuse plaques was comparable to mCERADSOT cases (true positives; TP). One case also had high % area stained for β-amyloid by IHC but was low intensity and the readers called this case true negative (TN) (reader ratio 5:0, Case 13) suggesting that in this case cortical β-amyloid levels in the absence of any neuritic plaques were insufficient to produce a positive image by PET. Another case had sufficient neuritic plaques (mCERADSOT 2.7) even though the % area stained was relatively low. For all panels, boxes represent mean +/- 1 standard error and whiskers represent 95% confidence interval. Open circles represent outlier values and asterisks represent extreme values (see Materials and methods for details)
PET majority, AD and mCERADSOT assessment by disease category
| Disease category | Number | Percent | PETmaj abnormal | # With coincident ADa | # mCERADSOT abnormal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alzheimer's Diseasea | 66 | (62%) | 62 | 66 | 64 |
| Lewy Body Diseaseb | 29 | (27%) | 23 | 16 | 22 |
| Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathyc | 27 | (25%) | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| Vasculard | 21 | (20%) | 14 | 14 | 16 |
| Arteriosclerosise | 13 | (12%) | 9 | 9 | 11 |
| Infarct | 7 | (7%) | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Normal | 6 | (6%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ageing Changes | 3 | (3%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TDP43 immunopositivef | 3 | (3%) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Tangle predominant dementia | 2 | (2%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Progressive Supranuclear Palsy | 2 | (2%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atherosclerosis | 2 | (2%) | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Frontotemporal Dementia | 1 | (1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Metastatic carcinoma | 1 | (1%) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hydrocephalus | 1 | (1%) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Multiple system atrophy | 1 | (1%) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Neurofibrillary degeneration | 1 | (1%) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Parkinson's Disease | 1 | (1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
AD Alzheimer’s disease, mCERAD standard of truth by modified Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease criteria, N Number of subjects, PETmaj majority read of positron emission tomography images, SOT standard of truth
All neuropathology diagnoses made blind to clinical data
aIncludes intermediate or high likelihood by National Institute of Ageing-Reagan Institute criteria irrespective of dementia status
bDiagnosed as dementia with Lewy bodies blinded to clinical data
cDoes not include focal cerebral amyloid angiopathy
dIncludes: multifocal infarcts, microinfarcts, cerebral vascular disease, vascular brain injury and vascular dementia
eincludes arteriosclerosis and arteriolosclerosis
fTDP43 immunopositivity was recorded at the site neuropathology laboratories, not as part of the diagnoses for the GE studies. This analysis was not performed on all subjects
Histometric, neuropathology, clinical and BIE correlates
| mCERADSOT | Amyloid phase | % Amyloid IHC | Dx AD (NIA-RI) | Dx AD (NIA-AA) | Braak stage | Cortical atrophy | SUVR | Dementia | BIE positivity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Quantitative) | (Ordinal) | (Quantitative) | (Ordinal) | (Ordinal) | (Ordinal) | (Ordinal) | (Quantitative) | (Nominal) | (Nominal) | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CERAD | (Ordinal) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mCERADSOT | (Quantitative) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Amyloid Phase | (Ordinal) | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % amyloid IHC | (Quantitative) | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AD (NIA-RI) | (Ordinal) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| AD (NIA-AA) | (Ordinal) | |||||
|
|
|
|
| Braak Stage | (Ordinal) | ||||||
|
|
|
| Cortical atrophy | (Ordinal) | |||||||
|
|
| SUVR | (Quantitative) | ||||||||
|
| Dementia | (Nominal) |
mCERAD modified CERAD Standard of Truth, IHC Immunohistochemistry, Dx AD (NIA-RI) Neuropathological diagnosis of AD likelihood using the National Institute of Ageing – Reagan Institute criteria [9], Dx AD (NIA-AA) Neuropathological diagnosis of AD likelihood using the National Institute of Ageing – Alzheimer’s Association criteria [8], SUVR Standard retention value ratio normalised to the cerebellar cortex, BIE Blinded Image evaluation of PET images, CERAD Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease
Statistical tests were performed as indicated in the insert panel. mCERADSOT, % area amyloid IHC and SUVR values are continuous variables. All other variables are either categorical; CERAD (None, Sparse, Moderate, Frequent); Amyloid Phase (phases 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5); Dx AD (NIA-RI) (Normal, Low, Intermediate or High - likelihood of AD), Dx AD (NIA-RI) (Not, Low, Intermediate or High – level of AD neuropathologic change), Braak Stage (Stage 0, I, II, III, IV, V and VI); Cortical atrophy (None, Mild, Moderate, Severe), or nominal; Dementia (Yes or No); BIE positivity (Normal Abnormal). All tests were performed using Spearman except BIE positivity vs Dementia which was perfomed using Chi-square test. Plots for some BIE positivity correlations are presented in Figs. 2 and 4
Summary statistics and case status for each of the β-amyloid dichotomy algorithms
| Case status (5 readers per case) | Pathology | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference standard | TN | FP | FN | TP | Normal | Abnormal | Sensitivitya | Specificityb |
| mCERADSOT c | 131 | 19 | 33 | 347 | 30 | 76 | 91% | 87% |
| mCERADmode d | 134 | 26 | 30 | 340 | 32 | 74 | 92% | 84% |
| CERADe | 134 | 51 | 30 | 315 | 37 | 69 | 91% | 72% |
| Amyloid phasef | 108 | 2 | 56 | 364 | 22 | 84 | 87% | 98% |
TN true negative, FP false positive, FN false negative, TP true positive
asensitivity (true positive rate) = TP/(TP + FN)
bspecificity (true negative rate) = TN/(TN + FP)
cAbnormal defined as any regional mCERADSOT score > 1.5). Note while these analyses are presented by individual reads, the a priori analysis was by majority read (sensitivity was 91% and specificity was 90% by majority read N = 106)
dAbnormal defined as any CERAD region moderate or frequent (multiple measures)
eAbnormal defined as and CERAD region moderate or frequent (single point estimate)
fAbnormal defined as phase 3, 4 or 5
Frequency of regional β-amyloid abnormality
| Neocortical region | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CERAD regions | ||||||||
| MFL | STG | MTG | IPL | ACG | PCG | PRC | PVC | |
| Pathology | ||||||||
| Frequency region maximala | 13 (17%) | 5 (7%) | 33 (43%) | 19 (25%) | 8 (11%) | 6 (8%) | 12 (16%) | 17 (22%) |
| Frequency region abnormal mCERADSOT >1.5 (of 76 abnormal cases) | 61 (80%) | 57 (75%) | 65 (85%) | 66 (87%) | 56 (74%) | 63 (83%) | 57 (75%) | 60 (79%) |
| PETb | Frontalc | Temporal | Parietal | PCG/PRC | ||||
| Frequency abnormal 5 reads per case (of 71 abnormal cases by majority) | 326 (92%) | 299 (84%) | 323 (91%) | 331 (93%) | ||||
MFL midfrontal lobe, STG superior temporal gyrus, MTG middle temporal gyrus, IPL inferior parietal lobe, ACG anterior cingulate gyrus, PCG posterior cingulate gyrus, PRC Precuneus, PVC primary visual cortex
amultiple regions may be simultaneously the region of maximal involvement
bBIE assessment also included the subcortical striatal region which was abnormal in 302 assessments (85%)
cThe frontal lobe was also assessed with the anterior-most aspect of the anterior cingulate in BIE assessment