OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the usefulness of quantitative SUVR thresholds on sub types of typical (type A) and atypical (non-type A) positive (Aβ+) and negative (Aβ-) 18F-florbetapir scans and aims to optimise the thresholds. METHODS: Clinical 18F-florbetapir scans (n = 100) were categorised by sub type and visual reads were performed independently by three trained readers. Inter-reader agreement and reader-to-reference agreement were measured. Optimal SUVR thresholds were derived by ROC analysis and were compared with thresholds derived from a healthy control group and values from published literature. RESULTS: Sub type division of 18F-florbetapir PET scans improves accuracy and agreement of visual reads for type A: accuracy 90%, 96% and 70% and agreement κ > 0.7, κ ≥ 0.85 and -0.1 < κ < 0.9 for all data, type A and non-type A respectively. Sub type division also improves quantitative classification accuracy of type A: optimum mcSUVR thresholds were found to be 1.32, 1.18 and 1.48 with accuracy 86%, 92% and 76% for all data, type A and non-type A respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aβ+/Aβ- mcSUVR threshold of 1.18 is suitable for classification of type A studies (sensitivity = 97%, specificity = 88%). Region-wise SUVR thresholds may improve classification accuracy in non-type A studies. Amyloid PET scans should be divided by sub type before quantification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We have derived and validated mcSUVR thresholds for Aβ+/Aβ- 18F-florbetapir studies. This work demonstrates that division into sub types improves reader accuracy and agreement and quantification accuracy in scans with typical presentation and highlights the atypical presentations not suited to global SUVR quantification.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the usefulness of quantitative SUVR thresholds on sub types of typical (type A) and atypical (non-type A) positive (Aβ+) and negative (Aβ-) 18F-florbetapir scans and aims to optimise the thresholds. METHODS: Clinical 18F-florbetapir scans (n = 100) were categorised by sub type and visual reads were performed independently by three trained readers. Inter-reader agreement and reader-to-reference agreement were measured. Optimal SUVR thresholds were derived by ROC analysis and were compared with thresholds derived from a healthy control group and values from published literature. RESULTS: Sub type division of 18F-florbetapir PET scans improves accuracy and agreement of visual reads for type A: accuracy 90%, 96% and 70% and agreement κ > 0.7, κ ≥ 0.85 and -0.1 < κ < 0.9 for all data, type A and non-type A respectively. Sub type division also improves quantitative classification accuracy of type A: optimum mcSUVR thresholds were found to be 1.32, 1.18 and 1.48 with accuracy 86%, 92% and 76% for all data, type A and non-type A respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aβ+/Aβ- mcSUVR threshold of 1.18 is suitable for classification of type A studies (sensitivity = 97%, specificity = 88%). Region-wise SUVR thresholds may improve classification accuracy in non-type A studies. Amyloid PET scans should be divided by sub type before quantification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We have derived and validated mcSUVR thresholds for Aβ+/Aβ- 18F-florbetapir studies. This work demonstrates that division into sub types improves reader accuracy and agreement and quantification accuracy in scans with typical presentation and highlights the atypical presentations not suited to global SUVR quantification.
Authors: S S Mirra; A Heyman; D McKeel; S M Sumi; B J Crain; L M Brownlee; F S Vogel; J P Hughes; G van Belle; L Berg Journal: Neurology Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Adam S Fleisher; Kewei Chen; Xiaofen Liu; Auttawut Roontiva; Pradeep Thiyyagura; Napatkamon Ayutyanont; Abhinay D Joshi; Christopher M Clark; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; P Murali Doraiswamy; Keith A Johnson; Daniel M Skovronsky; Eric M Reiman Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-07-11
Authors: Abhinay D Joshi; Michael J Pontecorvo; Chrisopher M Clark; Alan P Carpenter; Danna L Jennings; Carl H Sadowsky; Lee P Adler; Karel D Kovnat; John P Seibyl; Anupa Arora; Krishnendu Saha; Jason D Burns; Mark J Lowrey; Mark A Mintun; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Julie A Schneider; Barry J Bedell; Thomas G Beach; Warren B Bilker; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; Franz Hefti; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Michael J Krautkramer; Hank F Kung; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Eric P Reiman; P Eric M Reiman; Simone P Zehntner; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chloe Hutton; Jerome Declerck; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; Michael D Devous; Abhinay D Joshi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A P Nayate; J G Dubroff; J E Schmitt; I Nasrallah; R Kishore; D Mankoff; D A Pryma Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Susan M Landau; Ming Lu; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael Pontecorvo; Mark A Mintun; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw; William J Jagust Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Michael J Pontecorvo; Thomas G Beach; Barry J Bedell; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Eric M Reiman; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Julie A Schneider; Anupa Arora; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael J Krautkramer; Ming Lu; Mark A Mintun; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Susan M Landau; Mark A Mintun; Abhinay D Joshi; Robert A Koeppe; Ronald C Petersen; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; William J Jagust Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: V Camus; P Payoux; L Barré; B Desgranges; T Voisin; C Tauber; R La Joie; M Tafani; C Hommet; G Chételat; K Mondon; V de La Sayette; J P Cottier; E Beaufils; M J Ribeiro; V Gissot; E Vierron; J Vercouillie; B Vellas; F Eustache; D Guilloteau Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J L Ebenau; S C J Verfaillie; K A van den Bosch; T Timmers; L M P Wesselman; M van Leeuwenstijn; H Tuncel; S V S Golla; M M Yaqub; A D Windhorst; N D Prins; F Barkhof; P Scheltens; W M van der Flier; B N M van Berckel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marco Bucci; Irina Savitcheva; Gill Farrar; Gemma Salvadó; Lyduine Collij; Vincent Doré; Juan Domingo Gispert; Roger Gunn; Bernard Hanseeuw; Oskar Hansson; Mahnaz Shekari; Renaud Lhommel; José Luis Molinuevo; Christopher Rowe; Cyrille Sur; Alex Whittington; Christopher Buckley; Agneta Nordberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 9.236