Hiroto Kuwabara1, Robert A Comley2, Edilio Borroni3, Michael Honer2, Kelly Kitmiller4, Joshua Roberts4, Lorena Gapasin4, Anil Mathur4, Gregory Klein2, Dean F Wong4,5. 1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland hkuwaba1@jhmi.edu edilio.borroni@roche.com. 2. Pharma Research and Early Development, Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Pharma Research and Early Development, Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland hkuwaba1@jhmi.edu edilio.borroni@roche.com. 4. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
The availability of tau PET radioligands enables quantitative assessment of tau density and distribution in the human brain. We evaluated the kinetics of a novel radioligand, 18F-RO-948 (previously referred to as 18F-RO6958948), and its ability to identify tau positivity in individual patients with mild Alzheimer disease (AD). Methods: Eleven subjects with amyloid-positive mild AD, 5 amyloid-negative older control subjects (OC), and 5 younger control subjects (YC) completed 1 or 2 (4 AD and 5 OC) PET scans with 18F-RO-948 for 90, 120, or 200 min. The kinetics of the radioligand was evaluated with standard compartmental and noncompartmental models (with plasma data in 70% of cases), tissue-reference methods, and SUV ratio. These approaches were applied to assess the ability of 18F-RO-948 to discriminate AD subjects from OC subjects. Results: The plasma reference graphical analysis appeared to be the optimal method of quantification for 18F-RO-948, yielding strictly time-consistent values of distribution volume and distribution volume ratio at 90 min against the analyses at 120 and 200 min. The reference tissue graphical analysis and SUV ratio were cross-validated against plasma reference graphical analysis. Test-retest evaluation showed excellent reproducibility. A proposed novel index of tau load, the regional tau-positive fraction, showed high values in the medial and lateral temporal and parietal regions in AD and successfully separated AD subjects from OC and YC subjects with a significant margin. Conclusion: 18F-RO-948 appears to be a promising radioligand for quantitative imaging of tau in the brain of AD patients.
The availability of tau PET radioligands enables quantitative assessment of tau density and distribution in the human brain. We evaluated the kinetics of a novel radioligand, 18F-RO-948 (previously referred to as 18F-RO6958948), and its ability to identify tau positivity in individual patients with mild Alzheimer disease (AD). Methods: Eleven subjects with amyloid-positive mild AD, 5 amyloid-negative older control subjects (OC), and 5 younger control subjects (YC) completed 1 or 2 (4 AD and 5 OC) PET scans with 18F-RO-948 for 90, 120, or 200 min. The kinetics of the radioligand was evaluated with standard compartmental and noncompartmental models (with plasma data in 70% of cases), tissue-reference methods, and SUV ratio. These approaches were applied to assess the ability of 18F-RO-948 to discriminate AD subjects from OC subjects. Results: The plasma reference graphical analysis appeared to be the optimal method of quantification for 18F-RO-948, yielding strictly time-consistent values of distribution volume and distribution volume ratio at 90 min against the analyses at 120 and 200 min. The reference tissue graphical analysis and SUV ratio were cross-validated against plasma reference graphical analysis. Test-retest evaluation showed excellent reproducibility. A proposed novel index of tau load, the regional tau-positive fraction, showed high values in the medial and lateral temporal and parietal regions in AD and successfully separated AD subjects from OC and YC subjects with a significant margin. Conclusion:18F-RO-948 appears to be a promising radioligand for quantitative imaging of tau in the brain of ADpatients.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: J Logan; J S Fowler; N D Volkow; A P Wolf; S L Dewey; D J Schlyer; R R MacGregor; R Hitzemann; B Bendriem; S J Gatley Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Andreas Hahn; Martin Schain; Maria Erlandsson; Petter Sjölin; Gregory M James; Olof T Strandberg; Douglas Hägerström; Rupert Lanzenberger; Jonas Jögi; Tomas G Olsson; Ruben Smith; Oskar Hansson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hiroto Kuwabara; Yongjun Gao; Michael Stabin; Jennifer Coughlin; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Robert F Dannals; Martin G Pomper; Andrew G Horti Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.488
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: 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: Heiko Braak; Irina Alafuzoff; Thomas Arzberger; Hans Kretzschmar; Kelly Del Tredici Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2006-08-12 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Michael J Pontecorvo; Michael D Devous; Michael Navitsky; Ming Lu; Stephen Salloway; Frederick W Schaerf; Danna Jennings; Anupa K Arora; Anne McGeehan; Nathaniel C Lim; Hui Xiong; Abhinay D Joshi; Andrew Siderowf; Mark A Mintun Journal: Brain Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Dean F Wong; Robert A Comley; Hiroto Kuwabara; Paul B Rosenberg; Susan M Resnick; Susanne Ostrowitzki; Cristina Vozzi; Frank Boess; Esther Oh; Constantine G Lyketsos; Michael Honer; Luca Gobbi; Gregory Klein; Noble George; Lorena Gapasin; Kelly Kitzmiller; Josh Roberts; Jeff Sevigny; Ayon Nandi; James Brasic; Chakradhar Mishra; Madhav Thambisetty; Abhay Mogekar; Anil Mathur; Marilyn Albert; Robert F Dannals; Edilio Borroni Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Vasko Kramer; Allen F Brooks; Arlette Haeger; Rodrigo O Kuljis; Waqas Rafique; Robert A Koeppe; David M Raffel; Kirk A Frey; Horacio Amaral; Peter J H Scott; Patrick J Riss Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Antoine Leuzy; Tharick A Pascoal; Olof Strandberg; Philip Insel; Ruben Smith; Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren; Andréa L Benedet; Hannah Cho; Chul H Lyoo; Renaud La Joie; Gil D Rabinovici; Rik Ossenkoppele; Pedro Rosa-Neto; Oskar Hansson Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Santiago Bullich; Olivier Barret; Cristian Constantinescu; Christine Sandiego; Andre Mueller; Mathias Berndt; Caroline Papin; Audrey Perrotin; Norman Koglin; Heiko Kroth; Andrea Pfeifer; Gilles Tamagnan; Jennifer Madonia; John P Seibyl; Kenneth Marek; Susan De Santi; Ludger M Dinkelborg; Andrew W Stephens Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Juhan Reimand; Ruben Smith; Antoine Leuzy; Olof Strandberg; Sebastian Palmqvist; Erik Stomrud; Henrik Zetterberg; Philip Scheltens; Jeffrey L Dage; Femke Bouwman; Kaj Blennow; Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren; Shorena Janelidze; Oskar Hansson Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 12.137