Tomotaka Tanaka1,2,3, Mary C Stephenson4, Ying-Hwey Nai4, Damian Khor5, Francis N Saridin6, Saima Hilal6,7, Steven Villaraza6, Bibek Gyanwali6, Masafumi Ihara8, Henri Vrooman9, Ashley A Weekes4, John J Totman4, Edward G Robins4,10, Christopher P Chen6, Anthonin Reilhac4. 1. Clinical Imaging Research Centre, National University of Singapore, 14 Medical Drive, #B1-01, Singapore, 117599, Singapore. tanakat@ncvc.go.jp. 2. Department of Pharmacology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Blk MD3, 16 Medical Drive. Level 4, #04-01, Singapore, 117600, Singapore. tanakat@ncvc.go.jp. 3. Department of Neurology, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, 5-7-1 Fujishiro-dai, Suita, Osaka, 565-8565, Japan. tanakat@ncvc.go.jp. 4. Clinical Imaging Research Centre, National University of Singapore, 14 Medical Drive, #B1-01, Singapore, 117599, Singapore. 5. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National Cancer Institute of Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore. 6. Department of Pharmacology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Blk MD3, 16 Medical Drive. Level 4, #04-01, Singapore, 117600, Singapore. 7. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 8. Department of Neurology, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, 5-7-1 Fujishiro-dai, Suita, Osaka, 565-8565, Japan. 9. Biomedical Imaging group Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 10. Singapore Bioimaging Consortium, Agency for Science, A*Star,1Fusionopolis way, #20-10 Connexis North Tower, Singapore, 138632, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The analysis of the [11C]PiB-PET amyloid images of a unique Asian cohort of 186 participants featuring overlapping vascular diseases raised the question about the validity of current standards for amyloid quantification under abnormal conditions. In this work, we implemented a novel pipeline for improved amyloid PET quantification of this atypical cohort. METHODS: The investigated data correction and amyloid quantification methods included motion correction, standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) quantification using the parcellated MRI (standard method) and SUVr quantification without MRI. We introduced a novel amyloid analysis method yielding 2 biomarkers: AβL which quantifies the global Aβ burden and ns that characterizes the non-specific uptake. Cut-off points were first determined using visual assessment as ground truth and then using unsupervised classification techniques. RESULTS: Subject's motion impacts the accuracy of the measurement outcome but has however a limited effect on the visual rating and cut-off point determination. SUVr computation can be reliably performed for all the subjects without MRI parcellation while, when required, the parcellation failed or was of mediocre quality in 10% of the cases. The novel biomarker AβL showed an association increase of 29.5% with the cognitive tests and increased effect size between positive and negative scans compared with SUVr. ns was found sensitive to cerebral microbleeds, white matter hyperintensity, volume, and age. The cut-off points for SUVr using parcellated MRI, SUVr without parcellation, and AβL were 1.56, 1.39, and 25.5. Finally, k-means produced valid cut-off points without the requirement of visual assessment. CONCLUSION: The optimal processing for the amyloid quantification of this atypical cohort allows the quantification of all the subjects, producing SUVr values and two novel biomarkers: AβL, showing important increased in their association with various cognitive tests, and ns, a parameter sensitive to non-specific retention variations caused by age and cerebrovascular diseases.
PURPOSE: The analysis of the [11C]PiB-PET amyloid images of a unique Asian cohort of 186 participants featuring overlapping vascular diseases raised the question about the validity of current standards for amyloid quantification under abnormal conditions. In this work, we implemented a novel pipeline for improved amyloid PET quantification of this atypical cohort. METHODS: The investigated data correction and amyloid quantification methods included motion correction, standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) quantification using the parcellated MRI (standard method) and SUVr quantification without MRI. We introduced a novel amyloid analysis method yielding 2 biomarkers: AβL which quantifies the global Aβ burden and ns that characterizes the non-specific uptake. Cut-off points were first determined using visual assessment as ground truth and then using unsupervised classification techniques. RESULTS: Subject's motion impacts the accuracy of the measurement outcome but has however a limited effect on the visual rating and cut-off point determination. SUVr computation can be reliably performed for all the subjects without MRI parcellation while, when required, the parcellation failed or was of mediocre quality in 10% of the cases. The novel biomarker AβL showed an association increase of 29.5% with the cognitive tests and increased effect size between positive and negative scans compared with SUVr. ns was found sensitive to cerebral microbleeds, white matter hyperintensity, volume, and age. The cut-off points for SUVr using parcellated MRI, SUVr without parcellation, and AβL were 1.56, 1.39, and 25.5. Finally, k-means produced valid cut-off points without the requirement of visual assessment. CONCLUSION: The optimal processing for the amyloid quantification of this atypical cohort allows the quantification of all the subjects, producing SUVr values and two novel biomarkers: AβL, showing important increased in their association with various cognitive tests, and ns, a parameter sensitive to non-specific retention variations caused by age and cerebrovascular diseases.
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Claudia Jacova; Harald Hampel; José Luis Molinuevo; Kaj Blennow; Steven T DeKosky; Serge Gauthier; Dennis Selkoe; Randall Bateman; Stefano Cappa; Sebastian Crutch; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Giovanni B Frisoni; Nick C Fox; Douglas Galasko; Marie-Odile Habert; Gregory A Jicha; Agneta Nordberg; Florence Pasquier; Gil Rabinovici; Philippe Robert; Christopher Rowe; Stephen Salloway; Marie Sarazin; Stéphane Epelbaum; Leonardo C de Souza; Bruno Vellas; Pieter J Visser; Lon Schneider; Yaakov Stern; Philip Scheltens; Jeffrey L Cummings Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Val J Lowe; Emily S Lundt; Matthew L Senjem; Christopher G Schwarz; Hoon-Ki Min; Scott A Przybelski; Kejal Kantarci; David Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Lockhart; J R Lamb; T Osredkar; L I Sue; J N Joyce; L Ye; V Libri; D Leppert; T G Beach Journal: Brain Date: 2007-08-13 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Sylvia Villeneuve; Gil D Rabinovici; Brendan I Cohn-Sheehy; Cindee Madison; Nagehan Ayakta; Pia M Ghosh; Renaud La Joie; Samia Kate Arthur-Bentil; Jacob W Vogel; Shawn M Marks; Manja Lehmann; Howard J Rosen; Bruce Reed; John Olichney; Adam L Boxer; Bruce L Miller; Ewa Borys; Lee-Way Jin; Eric J Huang; Lea T Grinberg; Charles DeCarli; William W Seeley; William Jagust Journal: Brain Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David A Bennett; Kaj Blennow; Maria C Carrillo; Billy Dunn; Samantha Budd Haeberlein; David M Holtzman; William Jagust; Frank Jessen; Jason Karlawish; Enchi Liu; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Thomas Montine; Creighton Phelps; Katherine P Rankin; Christopher C Rowe; Philip Scheltens; Eric Siemers; Heather M Snyder; Reisa Sperling Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Eric E Smith; Geert J Biessels; Charlotte Cordonnier; Franz Fazekas; Richard Frayne; Richard I Lindley; John T O'Brien; Frederik Barkhof; Oscar R Benavente; Sandra E Black; Carol Brayne; Monique Breteler; Hugues Chabriat; Charles Decarli; Frank-Erik de Leeuw; Fergus Doubal; Marco Duering; Nick C Fox; Steven Greenberg; Vladimir Hachinski; Ingo Kilimann; Vincent Mok; Robert van Oostenbrugge; Leonardo Pantoni; Oliver Speck; Blossom C M Stephan; Stefan Teipel; Anand Viswanathan; David Werring; Christopher Chen; Colin Smith; Mark van Buchem; Bo Norrving; Philip B Gorelick; Martin Dichgans Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Ying-Hwey Nai; Yee-Hsin Tay; Tomotaka Tanaka; Christopher P Chen; Edward G Robins; Anthonin Reilhac Journal: Neuroinformatics Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Pierrick Bourgeat; Vincent Doré; James Doecke; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe; Jurgen Fripp; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michael A Levine; Joseph B Mandeville; Finnegan Calabro; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Daniel B Chonde; Kevin T Chen; Inki Hong; Julie C Price; Beatriz Luna; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 6.960
Authors: Haohui Liu; Ying-Hwey Nai; Francis Saridin; Tomotaka Tanaka; Jim O' Doherty; Saima Hilal; Bibek Gyanwali; Christopher P Chen; Edward G Robins; Anthonin Reilhac Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jordi Pegueroles; Victor Montal; Alexandre Bejanin; Eduard Vilaplana; Mateus Aranha; Miguel Angel Santos-Santos; Daniel Alcolea; Ignasi Carrió; Valle Camacho; Rafael Blesa; Alberto Lleó; Juan Fortea Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 21.566