| Literature DB >> 32318783 |
Leonie Beyer1, Alexander Nitschmann1, Henryk Barthel2, Thilo van Eimeren3,4,5,6, Marcus Unterrainer1, Julia Sauerbeck1, Ken Marek7,8, Mengmeng Song1, Carla Palleis9, Gesine Respondek9,10, Jochen Hammes4, Michael T Barbe5, Özgür Onur5, Frank Jessen6,11,12, Dorothee Saur13, Matthias L Schroeter14,15,16, Jost-Julian Rumpf12, Michael Rullmann2, Andreas Schildan2, Marianne Patt2, Bernd Neumaier17,18, Olivier Barret7,8, Jennifer Madonia7,8, David S Russell7,8, Andrew W Stephens19, Sigrun Roeber20, Jochen Herms10,20, Kai Bötzel9, Johannes Levin9,10, Joseph Classen13, Günter U Höglinger10,21,22, Peter Bartenstein1,23, Victor Villemagne24,25,26, Alexander Drzezga4,6, John Seibyl7,8, Osama Sabri2, Matthias Brendel27,28.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Second-generation tau radiotracers for use with positron emission tomography (PET) have been developed for visualization of tau deposits in vivo. For several β-amyloid and first-generation tau-PET radiotracers, it has been shown that early-phase images can be used as a surrogate of neuronal injury. Therefore, we investigated the performance of early acquisitions of the novel tau-PET radiotracer [18F]PI-2620 as a potential substitute for [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG).Entities:
Keywords: Neuronal injury; PET; Perfusion; Tau; [18F]PI-2620
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32318783 PMCID: PMC7567714 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-04788-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 9.236
Demographics of the study population
| All | Most likely AD | Most likely 4R-tauopathy | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects | 26 | 7 | 13 | 6 |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 66.0 ± 10.7 | 67.4 ± 9.1 | 70.7 ± 6.8 | 54.2 ± 11.6 |
| Gender (♂/ ♀) | ♂ 9/♀ 17 | ♂ 4/♀ 3 | ♂ 4/♀ 9 | ♂ 1/♀ 5 |
| Time interval between PI-2620- and FDG-PET (months, mean ± SD) | 1.2 ± 1.7 | 1.3 ± 1.8 | 1.2 ± 1.6 | 1.0 ± 2.0 |
| Significant neuronal injury [18F]FDG (%, visual) | 65 | 71 | 77 | 33 |
AD, Alzheimer’s disease; 4R, 4R-tauopathies (progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome); Other (frontotemporal dementia, multi-system atrophy, Parkinson’s disease, unclear phenotype); SD, standard deviation. Significant neuronal injury in FDG-PET was defined by the majority read of more experienced readers
Fig. 1a Averaged (across all study subjects) time-activity curve of [18F]PI-2620 in a cortical composite volume of interest during the dynamic data acquisition. b Correlation coefficients (R) between single frames of [18F]PI-2620-PET and [18F]FDG-PET (30–50 min p.i.). GBM, global mean scaling; CBL, cerebellar reference region. The time-window used for further analyses is highlighted in grey
Correlation coefficients between single frames of [18F]PI-2620-PET and [18F]FDG-PET
| Time frames (min post-injection) | R | pmax | R | pmax |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global mean normalization | Cerebellar normalization | |||
| 0–0.5 | 0.413 | 0.684 | 0.445 | 0.278 |
| 0.5–1.0 | 0.740 | 0.002** | 0.650 | 0.036* |
| 1.0–1.5 | 0.744 | 0.007** | 0.679 | 0.019* |
| 1.5–2.0 | 0.721 | 0.027* | 0.665 | 0.021* |
| 2.0–2.5 | 0.706 | 0.018* | 0.667 | 0.041* |
| 2.5–3.0 | 0.690 | 0.024* | 0.610 | 0.073 |
| 3.0–4.0 | 0.677 | 0.042* | 0.620 | 0.045* |
| 4.0–5.0 | 0.599 | 0.071 | 0.550 | 0.225 |
| 5.0–6.0 | 0.573 | 0.225 | 0.519 | 0.086 |
| 6.0–7.0 | 0.506 | 0.520 | 0.452 | 0.140 |
| 7.0–9.0 | 0.405 | 0.493 | 0.309 | 0.294 |
| 9.0–11.0 | 0.322 | 0.692 | 0.184 | 0.954 |
| 11.0–13.0 | 0.190 | 0.984 | − 0.005 | 0.895 |
| 13.0–15.0 | 0.155 | 0.983 | − 0.018 | 0.995 |
| 15.0–20.0 | 0.040 | 0.968 | − 0.082 | 0.912 |
| 20.0–25.0 | 0.009 | 0.621 | − 0.110 | 0.875 |
| 25.0–30.0 | − 0.047 | 0.970 | − 0.149 | 0.873 |
| 30.0–35.0 | − 0.021 | 0.909 | − 0.137 | 0.961 |
| 35.0–40.0 | − 0.039 | 0.911 | − 0.136 | 0.850 |
| 40.0–45.0 | − 0.055 | 0.748 | − 0.144 | 0.702 |
| 45.0–50.0 | − 0.082 | 0.961 | − 0.139 | 0.937 |
| 50.0–55.0 | − 0.070 | 0.683 | − 0.126 | 0.983 |
| 55.0–60.0 | − 0.117 | 0.955 | − 0.162 | 0.804 |
FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; R, correlation coefficient (Pearson, two-sided, Fisher’s Z-transformation of all regions); pmax, maximum p value of all ten cortical regions. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Fig. 2Correlation charts of early-phase [18F]PI-26200.5–2.5min and [18F]PI-2620R1 with [18F]FDG-PET SUVr (all global mean normalization). SUVr, standard-uptake-value-ratio; FRO, frontal; CENT, central; PAR, parietal; TEMP, temp; OCC, occipital
Fig. 3Representative 3D-SSP images (Z-score maps) of [18F]FDG-PET, early-phase [18F]PI-26200.5–2.5min and [18F]PI-2620R1 for three different most likely diagnoses of neurodegenerative disorders: a Alzheimer’s disease, b frontotemporal dementia, c progressive supranuclear palsy (Richardson syndrome). Surface projections from R, right; L, left; LAT, lateral; SUP, superior; INF, inferior; ANT, anterior; POST, posterior; MED, medial
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) between visual assessments of [18F]FDG-PET and early-phase [18F]PI-2620-PET; SUM, summed image 0.5–2.5 min after injection of [18F]PI-2620; LER, less experienced reader; MER, more experienced reader; R, right; L, left; ND, neurodegeneration
| LER1 | LER2 | LER3 | MER1 | MER2 | MER3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDG versus SUM | ||||||
| Likelihood of ND | 0.661** | 0.159 | 0.335 | 0.545** | 0.404* | 0.405* |
| Frontal R | 0.666** | 0.579** | 0.407* | 0.491* | 0.403* | 0.306 |
| Frontal L | 0.738** | 0.576** | 0.482* | 0.550** | 0.568** | 0.525** |
| Parietal R | 0.876** | 0.641** | 0.323 | 0.612** | 0.398* | 0.803** |
| Parietal L | 0.717** | 0.725** | 0.478* | 0.531** | 0.359 | 0.659** |
| Temporal R | 0.454* | 0.517** | 0.470* | 0.677** | 0.294 | 0.239 |
| Temporal L | 0.634** | 0.399* | 0.658** | 0.566** | 0.565** | 0.321 |
| Occipital R | − 0.097 | 0.385 | 0.587** | 0.676** | 0.074 | 0.692** |
| Occipital L | 0.280 | 0.476* | 0.566** | 0.852** | 0.554** | 0.557** |
| FDG versus R1 | ||||||
| Likelihood of ND | 0.541** | 0.267 | 0.526** | 0.634** | 0.598** | 0.593** |
| Frontal R | 0.366 | 0.447* | 0.258 | 0.432* | 0.255 | 0.326 |
| Frontal L | 0.732** | 0.576** | 0.600** | 0.598** | 0.558** | 0.401* |
| Parietal R | 0.756** | 0.726** | 0.614** | 0.674** | 0.508** | 0.742** |
| Parietal L | 0.617** | 0.714** | 0.724** | 0.554** | 0.654** | 0.560** |
| Temporal R | 0.577** | 0.493 | 0.371 | 0.367 | 0.337 | 0.588** |
| Temporal L | 0.670** | 0.454* | 0.706** | 0.557** | 0.747** | 0.537** |
| Occipital R | − 0.097 | 0.180 | − 0.002 | 0.820** | 0.286 | 0.731** |
| Occipital L | 0.345 | 0.509** | 0.598** | 0.801** | 0.684** | 0.728** |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Fig. 4Disagreement between visual rating of early-phase a [18F]PI-26200.5–2.5min and b [18F]PI-2620R1 3D-SSP images in contrast to visual rating of [18F]FDG-PET 3D-SSP images for all evaluated brain regions of all cases (n = 624). Less experienced (LER) and more experienced (MER) readers are displayed separately