Alex Whittington1, Roger N Gunn2,3. 1. Invicro LLC, London, United Kingdom; and alexander.whittington@invicro.co.uk. 2. Invicro LLC, London, United Kingdom; and. 3. Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Recently, AmyloidIQ was introduced as a new canonical image-based algorithm to quantify amyloid PET scans and demonstrated increased power over traditional SUV ratio (SUVR) approaches when assessed in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. We build further on this mathematical framework to develop a TauIQ algorithm for the quantitative analysis of the more complex spatial distribution displayed by tau PET radiotracers. Methods: Cross-sectional (n = 615) and longitudinal (n = 149) 18F-flortaucipir data were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative along with necessary adjunct amyloid PET and T1-weighted structural MRI data. A subset of these data were used to derive a chronological tau dataset, using AmyloidIQ analysis of associated amyloid PET data to calculate the subject's temporal position in the canonical AD disease process, from which canonical images for the nonspecific and specific binding components of 18F-flortaucipir in AD were calculated. These 2 canonical images were incorporated into the TauIQ algorithm that enables the quantification of both global and local tau outcome measures using an image-based regression and statistical parametric analysis of the initial residual image. Performance of the TauIQ algorithm was compared with SUVR approaches for cross-sectional analyses, longitudinal analyses, and correlation with clinical measures (Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale [ADAS-Cog], Clinical Dementia Rating scale-sum of boxes [CDR-SB], and Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]). Results: TauIQ successfully calculated global tau load (TauL) in all 791 scans analyzed (range, -3.5% to 185.2%; mean ± SD, 23% ± 20.5%) with a nonzero additional local tau component being required in 31% of all scans (cognitively normal [CN], 22%; mild cognitive impairment [MCI], 35%; dementia, 72%). TauIQ was compared with the best SUVR approach in the cross-sectional analysis (TauL increase in effect size: CN- vs. CN+, +45%; CN- vs. MCI+, -5.6%; CN- vs. dementia+, +2.3%) (+/- indicates amyloid-positive or -negative) and correlation with clinical scores (TauL increase in r 2: CDR-SB+, 7%; MMSE+, 38%; ADAS-Cog+, 0%). TauIQ substantially outperformed SUVR approaches in the longitudinal analysis (TauIQ increase in power: CN+, >3.2-fold; MCI+, >2.2-fold; dementia+, >2.9-fold). Conclusion: TauL as calculated by TauIQ provides a superior approach for the quantification of tau PET data. In particular, it provides a substantial improvement in power for longitudinal analyses and the early detection of tau deposition and thus should have significant value for clinical imaging trials in AD that are investigating the attenuation of tau deposition with novel therapies.
Recently, AmyloidIQ was introduced as a new canonical image-based algorithm to quantify amyloid PET scans and demonstrated increased power over traditional SUV ratio (SUVR) approaches when assessed in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. We build further on this mathematical framework to develop a TauIQ algorithm for the quantitative analysis of the more complex spatial distribution displayed by tau PET radiotracers. Methods: Cross-sectional (n = 615) and longitudinal (n = 149) 18F-flortaucipir data were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative along with necessary adjunct amyloid PET and T1-weighted structural MRI data. A subset of these data were used to derive a chronological tau dataset, using AmyloidIQ analysis of associated amyloid PET data to calculate the subject's temporal position in the canonical AD disease process, from which canonical images for the nonspecific and specific binding components of 18F-flortaucipir in AD were calculated. These 2 canonical images were incorporated into the TauIQ algorithm that enables the quantification of both global and local tau outcome measures using an image-based regression and statistical parametric analysis of the initial residual image. Performance of the TauIQ algorithm was compared with SUVR approaches for cross-sectional analyses, longitudinal analyses, and correlation with clinical measures (Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale [ADAS-Cog], Clinical Dementia Rating scale-sum of boxes [CDR-SB], and Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]). Results: TauIQ successfully calculated global tau load (TauL) in all 791 scans analyzed (range, -3.5% to 185.2%; mean ± SD, 23% ± 20.5%) with a nonzero additional local tau component being required in 31% of all scans (cognitively normal [CN], 22%; mild cognitive impairment [MCI], 35%; dementia, 72%). TauIQ was compared with the best SUVR approach in the cross-sectional analysis (TauL increase in effect size: CN- vs. CN+, +45%; CN- vs. MCI+, -5.6%; CN- vs. dementia+, +2.3%) (+/- indicates amyloid-positive or -negative) and correlation with clinical scores (TauL increase in r 2: CDR-SB+, 7%; MMSE+, 38%; ADAS-Cog+, 0%). TauIQ substantially outperformed SUVR approaches in the longitudinal analysis (TauIQ increase in power: CN+, >3.2-fold; MCI+, >2.2-fold; dementia+, >2.9-fold). Conclusion: TauL as calculated by TauIQ provides a superior approach for the quantification of tau PET data. In particular, it provides a substantial improvement in power for longitudinal analyses and the early detection of tau deposition and thus should have significant value for clinical imaging trials in AD that are investigating the attenuation of tau deposition with novel therapies.
Authors: David T Chien; Shadfar Bahri; A Katrin Szardenings; Joseph C Walsh; Fanrong Mu; Min-Ying Su; William R Shankle; Arkadij Elizarov; Hartmuth C Kolb Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Andri C Tziortzi; Graham E Searle; Sofia Tzimopoulou; Cristian Salinas; John D Beaver; Mark Jenkinson; Marc Laruelle; Eugenii A Rabiner; Roger N Gunn Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: William J Jagust; Susan M Landau; Robert A Koeppe; Eric M Reiman; Kewei Chen; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Norman L Foster; Angela Y Wang Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Sandra Sanabria Bohórquez; Jan Marik; Annie Ogasawara; Jeff N Tinianow; Herman S Gill; Olivier Barret; Gilles Tamagnan; David Alagille; Gai Ayalon; Paul Manser; Thomas Bengtsson; Michael Ward; Simon-Peter Williams; Geoffrey A Kerchner; John P Seibyl; Kenneth Marek; Robby M Weimer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Susanne G Mueller; Michael W Weiner; Leon J Thal; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; John Q Trojanowski; Arthur W Toga; Laurel Beckett Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Marta Marquié; Marc D Normandin; Charles R Vanderburg; Isabel M Costantino; Elizabeth A Bien; Lisa G Rycyna; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Milos D Ikonomovic; Manik L Debnath; Neil Vasdev; Bradford C Dickerson; Stephen N Gomperts; John H Growdon; Keith A Johnson; Matthew P Frosch; Bradley T Hyman; Teresa Gómez-Isla Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Michael J Pontecorvo; Michael D Devous; Ian Kennedy; Michael Navitsky; Ming Lu; Nicholas Galante; Stephen Salloway; P Murali Doraiswamy; Sudeepti Southekal; Anupa K Arora; Anne McGeehan; Nathaniel C Lim; Hui Xiong; Stephen P Truocchio; Abhinay D Joshi; Sergey Shcherbinin; Brian Teske; Adam S Fleisher; Mark A Mintun Journal: Brain Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Andre Mueller; Santiago Bullich; Olivier Barret; Jennifer Madonia; Mathias Berndt; Caroline Papin; Audrey Perrotin; Norman Koglin; Heiko Kroth; Andrea Pfeifer; Gilles Tamagnan; 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: Val J Lowe; Geoffry Curran; Ping Fang; Amanda M Liesinger; Keith A Josephs; Joseph E Parisi; Kejal Kantarci; Bradley F Boeve; Mukesh K Pandey; Tyler Bruinsma; David S Knopman; David T Jones; Leonard Petrucelli; Casey N Cook; Neill R Graff-Radford; Dennis W Dickson; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Melissa E Murray Journal: Acta Neuropathol Commun Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 7.801
Authors: Michael L Alosco; Megan L Mariani; Charles H Adler; Laura J Balcer; Charles Bernick; Rhoda Au; Sarah J Banks; William B Barr; Sylvain Bouix; Robert C Cantu; Michael J Coleman; David W Dodick; Lindsay A Farrer; Yonas E Geda; Douglas I Katz; Inga K Koerte; Neil W Kowall; Alexander P Lin; Daniel S Marcus; Kenneth L Marek; Michael D McClean; Ann C McKee; Jesse Mez; Joseph N Palmisano; Elaine R Peskind; Yorghos Tripodis; Robert W Turner; Jennifer V Wethe; Jeffrey L Cummings; Eric M Reiman; Martha E Shenton; Robert A Stern Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 8.823