OBJECTIVE: To use a cluster analysis of [18 F]AV-1451 tau-PET data to determine how subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD) vary in the relative involvement of the entorhinal cortex and neocortex, and determine whether relative involvement of these two regions can help explain variability in age and clinical phenotype in AD. METHODS: We calculated [18 F]AV-1451 uptake in entorhinal cortex and neocortex in 62 amyloid-positive AD patients (39 typical and 23 atypical presentation). tau-PET (positron emission tomography) values were normalized to the cerebellum to create standard uptake value ratios (SUVRs). tau-PET SUVRs were log-transformed and clustered blinded to clinical information into three groups using K-median cluster analysis. Demographics, clinical phenotype, cognitive performance, and apolipoprotein e4 frequency were compared across clusters. RESULTS: The cluster analysis identified a cluster with low entorhinal and cortical uptake (ELo /CLo ), one with low entorhinal but high cortical uptake (ELo /CHi ), and one with high cortical and entorhinal uptake (EHi /CHi ). Clinical phenotype differed across clusters, with typical AD most commonly observed in the ELo /CLo and EHi /CHi clusters, and atypical AD most commonly observed in the ELo /CHi cluster. The ELo /CLo cluster had an older age at PET and onset than the other clusters. Apolipoprotein e4 frequency was lower in the ELo /CHi cluster. The EHi /CHi cluster had the worst memory impairment, whereas the ELo /CHi cluster had the worst impairment in nonmemory domains. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates considerable variability in [18 F]AV-1451 tau-PET uptake in AD, but shows that a straightforward clustering based on entorhinal and cortical uptake maps well onto age and clinical presentation in AD. Ann Neurol 2018 Ann Neurol 2018;83:248-257.
OBJECTIVE: To use a cluster analysis of [18 F]AV-1451tau-PET data to determine how subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD) vary in the relative involvement of the entorhinal cortex and neocortex, and determine whether relative involvement of these two regions can help explain variability in age and clinical phenotype in AD. METHODS: We calculated [18 F]AV-1451 uptake in entorhinal cortex and neocortex in 62 amyloid-positive ADpatients (39 typical and 23 atypical presentation). tau-PET (positron emission tomography) values were normalized to the cerebellum to create standard uptake value ratios (SUVRs). tau-PET SUVRs were log-transformed and clustered blinded to clinical information into three groups using K-median cluster analysis. Demographics, clinical phenotype, cognitive performance, and apolipoprotein e4 frequency were compared across clusters. RESULTS: The cluster analysis identified a cluster with low entorhinal and cortical uptake (ELo /CLo ), one with low entorhinal but high cortical uptake (ELo /CHi ), and one with high cortical and entorhinal uptake (EHi /CHi ). Clinical phenotype differed across clusters, with typical AD most commonly observed in the ELo /CLo and EHi /CHi clusters, and atypical AD most commonly observed in the ELo /CHi cluster. The ELo /CLo cluster had an older age at PET and onset than the other clusters. Apolipoprotein e4 frequency was lower in the ELo /CHi cluster. The EHi /CHi cluster had the worst memory impairment, whereas the ELo /CHi cluster had the worst impairment in nonmemory domains. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates considerable variability in [18 F]AV-1451tau-PET uptake in AD, but shows that a straightforward clustering based on entorhinal and cortical uptake maps well onto age and clinical presentation in AD. Ann Neurol 2018 Ann Neurol 2018;83:248-257.
Authors: Val J Lowe; Heather J Wiste; Matthew L Senjem; Stephen D Weigand; Terry M Therneau; Bradley F Boeve; Keith A Josephs; Ping Fang; Mukesh K Pandey; Melissa E Murray; Kejal Kantarci; David T Jones; Prashanthi Vemuri; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Christopher G Schwarz; Mary M Machulda; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Brain Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Minerva M Carrasquillo; Qurat ul Ain Khan; Melissa E Murray; Siddharth Krishnan; Jeremiah Aakre; V Shane Pankratz; Thuy Nguyen; Li Ma; Gina Bisceglio; Ronald C Petersen; Steven G Younkin; Dennis W Dickson; Bradley F Boeve; Neill R Graff-Radford; Nilüfer Ertekin-Taner Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: J L Whitwell; K A Josephs; M E Murray; K Kantarci; S A Przybelski; S D Weigand; P Vemuri; M L Senjem; J E Parisi; D S Knopman; B F Boeve; R C Petersen; D W Dickson; C R Jack Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Christiane Möller; Hugo Vrenken; Lize Jiskoot; Adriaan Versteeg; Frederik Barkhof; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Marta Marquié; Marc D Normandin; Charles R Vanderburg; Isabel M Costantino; Elizabeth A Bien; Lisa G Rycyna; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Milos D Ikonomovic; Manik L Debnath; Neil Vasdev; Bradford C Dickerson; Stephen N Gomperts; John H Growdon; Keith A Johnson; Matthew P Frosch; Bradley T Hyman; Teresa Gómez-Isla Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Matthew L Senjem; Stephen D Weigand; Bradley J Kemp; Maria M Shiung; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Brain Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Rosebud O Roberts; Yonas E Geda; David S Knopman; Ruth H Cha; V Shane Pankratz; Bradley F Boeve; Robert J Ivnik; Eric G Tangalos; Ronald C Petersen; Walter A Rocca Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Milos D Ikonomovic; Eric E Abrahamson; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Val J Lowe; Geoffry Curran; Ping Fang; Amanda M Liesinger; Keith A Josephs; Joseph E Parisi; Kejal Kantarci; Bradley F Boeve; Mukesh K Pandey; Tyler Bruinsma; David S Knopman; David T Jones; Leonard Petrucelli; Casey N Cook; Neill R Graff-Radford; Dennis W Dickson; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Melissa E Murray Journal: Acta Neuropathol Commun Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 7.801
Authors: Jennifer L Whitwell; Peter Martin; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Mary M Machulda; Matthew L Senjem; Christopher G Schwarz; Stephen D Weigand; Anthony J Spychalla; Daniel A Drubach; Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Keith A Josephs Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Irene Sintini; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Matthew L Senjem; Christopher G Schwarz; Mary M Machulda; Peter R Martin; David T Jones; Bradley F Boeve; David S Knopman; Kejal Kantarci; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: Brain Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Gil D Rabinovici; Ruben Smith; Hanna Cho; Michael Schöll; Olof Strandberg; Sebastian Palmqvist; Niklas Mattsson; Shorena Janelidze; Alexander Santillo; Tomas Ohlsson; Jonas Jögi; Richard Tsai; Renaud La Joie; Joel Kramer; Adam L Boxer; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Bruce L Miller; Jae Y Choi; Young H Ryu; Chul H Lyoo; Oskar Hansson Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Irene Sintini; Jonathan Graff-Radford; David T Jones; Hugo Botha; Peter R Martin; Mary M Machulda; Christopher G Schwarz; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Justin S Sanchez; J Alex Becker; Heidi I L Jacobs; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Shu Jiang; Aaron P Schultz; Michael J Properzi; Samantha R Katz; Alexa Beiser; Claudia L Satizabal; Adrienne O'Donnell; Charles DeCarli; Ron Killiany; Georges El Fakhri; Marc D Normandin; Teresa Gómez-Isla; Yakeel T Quiroz; Dorene M Rentz; Reisa A Sperling; Sudha Seshadri; Jean Augustinack; Julie C Price; Keith A Johnson Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 17.956