Pierrick Bourgeat1, Vincent Doré2, Jurgen Fripp3, David Ames4, Colin L Masters5, Olivier Salvado3, Victor L Villemagne6, Christopher C Rowe7. 1. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: Pierrick.Bourgeat@csiro.au. 2. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia; Department of Molecular Imaging, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. 3. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia. 4. National Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 5. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 6. Department of Molecular Imaging, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Molecular Imaging, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
The centiloid scale was recently proposed to provide a standard framework for the quantification of β-amyloid PET images, so that amyloid burden can be expressed on a standard scale. While the framework prescribes SPM8 as the standard analysis method for PET quantification, non-standard methods can be calibrated to produce centiloid values. We have previously developed a PET-only quantification: CapAIBL. In this study, we show how CapAIBL can be calibrated to the centiloid scale. METHODS: Calibration images for 11C-PiB, 18F-NAV4694, 18F-Florbetaben, 18F-Flutemetamol and 18F- Florbetapir were analysed using the standard method and CapAIBL. Using these images, both methods were calibrated to the centiloid scale. Centiloid values computed using CapAIBL were compared to those computed using standard method. For each tracer, a separate validation was performed using an independent dataset from the AIBL study. RESULTS: Using the calibration images, there was a very strong agreement, and very little bias between the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL and those computed using the standard method with R2 > 0.97 across all tracers. Using images from AIBL, the agreement was also high with R2 > 0.96 across all tracers. In this dataset, there was a small underestimation of the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL of less than 0.8% in PiB, and a small over-estimation of 1.3% in Florbetapir, and 0.8% in Flutemetamol. There was a larger overestimation of 8% in NAV images, and 14% underestimation in Florbetaben images. However, some of these differences could be explained by the use of different scanners between the calibration scans and the ones used in AIBL. CONCLUSION: The PET-only quantification method, CapAIBL, can produce reliable centiloid values. The bias observed in the AIBL dataset for 18F-NAV4694 and 18F-Florbetaben may indicate that using different scanners or reconstruction methods might require scanner-specific adjustments.
The centiloid scale was recently proposed to provide a standard framework for the quantification of β-amyloid PET images, so that amyloid burden can be expressed on a standard scale. While the framework prescribes SPM8 as the standard analysis method for PET quantification, non-standard methods can be calibrated to produce centiloid values. We have previously developed a PET-only quantification: CapAIBL. In this study, we show how CapAIBL can be calibrated to the centiloid scale. METHODS: Calibration images for 11C-PiB, 18F-NAV4694, 18F-Florbetaben, 18F-Flutemetamol and 18F- Florbetapir were analysed using the standard method and CapAIBL. Using these images, both methods were calibrated to the centiloid scale. Centiloid values computed using CapAIBL were compared to those computed using standard method. For each tracer, a separate validation was performed using an independent dataset from the AIBL study. RESULTS: Using the calibration images, there was a very strong agreement, and very little bias between the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL and those computed using the standard method with R2 > 0.97 across all tracers. Using images from AIBL, the agreement was also high with R2 > 0.96 across all tracers. In this dataset, there was a small underestimation of the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL of less than 0.8% in PiB, and a small over-estimation of 1.3% in Florbetapir, and 0.8% in Flutemetamol. There was a larger overestimation of 8% in NAV images, and 14% underestimation in Florbetaben images. However, some of these differences could be explained by the use of different scanners between the calibration scans and the ones used in AIBL. CONCLUSION: The PET-only quantification method, CapAIBL, can produce reliable centiloid values. The bias observed in the AIBL dataset for 18F-NAV4694 and 18F-Florbetaben may indicate that using different scanners or reconstruction methods might require scanner-specific adjustments.
Authors: Pierrick Bourgeat; Vincent Doré; Samantha C Burnham; Tammie Benzinger; Duygu Tosun; Shenpeng Li; Manu Goyal; Pamela LaMontagne; Liang Jin; Christopher C Rowe; Michael W Weiner; John C Morris; Colin L Masters; Jurgen Fripp; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 7.400
Authors: Emily Rosenich; Lisa Bransby; Nawaf Yassi; Jurgen Fripp; Simon M Laws; Ralph N Martins; Christopher Fowler; Stephanie R Rainey-Smith; Christopher C Rowe; Colin L Masters; Paul Maruff; Yen Ying Lim Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Yan Li; Suzanne E Schindler; James G Bollinger; Vitaliy Ovod; Kwasi G Mawuenyega; Michael W Weiner; Leslie M Shaw; Colin L Masters; Christopher J Fowler; John Q Trojanowski; Magdalena Korecka; Ralph N Martins; Shorena Janelidze; Oskar Hansson; Randall J Bateman Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Vincent Doré; Natasha Krishnadas; Pierrick Bourgeat; Kun Huang; Shenpeng Li; Samantha Burnham; Colin L Masters; Jurgen Fripp; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mark R Battle; Lovena Chedumbarum Pillay; Val J Lowe; David Knopman; Bradley Kemp; Christopher C Rowe; Vincent Doré; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher J Buckley Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Michael Vacher; Tenielle Porter; Victor L Villemagne; Lidija Milicic; Madeline Peretti; Christopher Fowler; Ralph Martins; Stephanie Rainey-Smith; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe; James D Doecke; Simon M Laws Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sanka Amadoru; Vincent Doré; Catriona A McLean; Fairlie Hinton; Claire E Shepherd; Glenda M Halliday; Cristian E Leyton; Paul A Yates; John R Hodges; Colin L Masters; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: James D Doecke; Larry Ward; Samantha C Burnham; Victor L Villemagne; Qiao-Xin Li; Steven Collins; Christopher J Fowler; Ekaterina Manuilova; Monika Widmann; Stephanie R Rainey-Smith; Ralph N Martins; Colin L Masters Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Steve Pedrini; Eugene Hone; Veer B Gupta; Ian James; Elham Teimouri; Ashley I Bush; Christopher C Rowe; Victor L Villemagne; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Stephanie Rainey-Smith; Giuseppe Verdile; Hamid R Sohrabi; Manfred R Raida; Markus R Wenk; Kevin Taddei; Pratishtha Chatterjee; Ian Martins; Simon M Laws; Ralph N Martins Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472