Sarah K Royse1, Davneet S Minhas2, Brian J Lopresti2, Alice Murphy3, Tyler Ward3, Robert A Koeppe4, Santiago Bullich5, Susan DeSanti6, William J Jagust3, Susan M Landau3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. sak225@pitt.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. 4. Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, Berlin, Germany. 6. Life Molecular Imaging Inc, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent positivity thresholds, image analysis pipelines, and quantitative outcomes are key challenges of multisite studies using more than one β-amyloid (Aβ) radiotracer in positron emission tomography (PET). Variability related to these factors contributes to disagreement and lack of replicability in research and clinical trials. To address these problems and promote Aβ PET harmonization, we used [18F]florbetaben (FBB) and [18F]florbetapir (FBP) data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) to derive (1) standardized Centiloid (CL) transformations and (2) internally consistent positivity thresholds based on separate young control samples. METHODS: We analyzed Aβ PET data using a native-space, automated image processing pipeline that is used for PET quantification in many large, multisite AD studies and trials and made available to the research community. With this pipeline, we derived SUVR-to-CL transformations using the Global Alzheimer's Association Interactive Network data; we used reference regions for cross-sectional (whole cerebellum) and longitudinal (subcortical white matter, brain stem, whole cerebellum) analyses. Finally, we developed a FBB positivity threshold using an independent young control sample (N=62) with methods parallel to our existing FBP positivity threshold and validated the FBB threshold using a data-driven approach in ADNI participants (N=295). RESULTS: The FBB threshold based on the young sample (1.08; 18 CL) was consistent with that of the data-driven approach (1.10; 21 CL), and the existing FBP threshold converted to CL with the derived transformation (1.11; 20 CL). The following equations can be used to convert whole cerebellum- (cross-sectional) and composite- (longitudinal) normalized FBB and FBP data quantified with the native-space pipeline to CL units: [18F]FBB: CLwhole cerebellum = 157.15 × SUVRFBB - 151.87; threshold=1.08, 18 CL [18F]FBP: CLwhole cerebellum = 188.22 × SUVRFBP - 189.16; threshold=1.11, 20 CL [18F]FBB: CLcomposite = 244.20 × SUVRFBB - 170.80 [18F]FBP: CLcomposite = 300.66 × SUVRFBP - 208.84 CONCLUSIONS: FBB and FBP positivity thresholds derived from independent young control samples and quantified using an automated, native-space approach result in similar CL values. These findings are applicable to thousands of available and anticipated outcomes analyzed using this pipeline and shared with the scientific community. This work demonstrates the feasibility of harmonized PET acquisition and analysis in multisite PET studies and internal consistency of positivity thresholds in standardized units.
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent positivity thresholds, image analysis pipelines, and quantitative outcomes are key challenges of multisite studies using more than one β-amyloid (Aβ) radiotracer in positron emission tomography (PET). Variability related to these factors contributes to disagreement and lack of replicability in research and clinical trials. To address these problems and promote Aβ PET harmonization, we used [18F]florbetaben (FBB) and [18F]florbetapir (FBP) data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) to derive (1) standardized Centiloid (CL) transformations and (2) internally consistent positivity thresholds based on separate young control samples. METHODS: We analyzed Aβ PET data using a native-space, automated image processing pipeline that is used for PET quantification in many large, multisite AD studies and trials and made available to the research community. With this pipeline, we derived SUVR-to-CL transformations using the Global Alzheimer's Association Interactive Network data; we used reference regions for cross-sectional (whole cerebellum) and longitudinal (subcortical white matter, brain stem, whole cerebellum) analyses. Finally, we developed a FBB positivity threshold using an independent young control sample (N=62) with methods parallel to our existing FBP positivity threshold and validated the FBB threshold using a data-driven approach in ADNIparticipants (N=295). RESULTS: The FBB threshold based on the young sample (1.08; 18 CL) was consistent with that of the data-driven approach (1.10; 21 CL), and the existing FBP threshold converted to CL with the derived transformation (1.11; 20 CL). The following equations can be used to convert whole cerebellum- (cross-sectional) and composite- (longitudinal) normalized FBB and FBP data quantified with the native-space pipeline to CL units: [18F]FBB: CLwhole cerebellum = 157.15 × SUVRFBB - 151.87; threshold=1.08, 18 CL [18F]FBP: CLwhole cerebellum = 188.22 × SUVRFBP - 189.16; threshold=1.11, 20 CL [18F]FBB: CLcomposite = 244.20 × SUVRFBB - 170.80 [18F]FBP: CLcomposite = 300.66 × SUVRFBP - 208.84 CONCLUSIONS: FBB and FBP positivity thresholds derived from independent young control samples and quantified using an automated, native-space approach result in similar CL values. These findings are applicable to thousands of available and anticipated outcomes analyzed using this pipeline and shared with the scientific community. This work demonstrates the feasibility of harmonized PET acquisition and analysis in multisite PET studies and internal consistency of positivity thresholds in standardized units.
Authors: Mark E Schmidt; Ping Chiao; Gregory Klein; Dawn Matthews; Lennart Thurfjell; Patricia E Cole; Richard Margolin; Susan Landau; Norman L Foster; N Scott Mason; Susan De Santi; Joyce Suhy; Robert A Koeppe; William Jagust Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Susan M Landau; Christopher Breault; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael Pontecorvo; Chester A Mathis; William J Jagust; Mark A Mintun Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Susan M Landau; Allison Fero; Suzanne L Baker; Robert Koeppe; Mark Mintun; Kewei Chen; Eric M Reiman; William J Jagust Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: William E Klunk; Robert A Koeppe; Julie C Price; Tammie L Benzinger; Michael D Devous; William J Jagust; Keith A Johnson; Chester A Mathis; Davneet Minhas; Michael J Pontecorvo; Christopher C Rowe; Daniel M Skovronsky; Mark A Mintun Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Matthias Brendel; Marcus Högenauer; Andreas Delker; Julia Sauerbeck; Peter Bartenstein; John Seibyl; Axel Rominger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nelleke Tolboom; Maqsood Yaqub; Ronald Boellaard; Gert Luurtsema; Albert D Windhorst; Philip Scheltens; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: William E Klunk; Henry Engler; Agneta Nordberg; Yanming Wang; Gunnar Blomqvist; Daniel P Holt; Mats Bergström; Irina Savitcheva; Guo-feng Huang; Sergio Estrada; Birgitta Ausén; Manik L Debnath; Julien Barletta; Julie C Price; Johan Sandell; Brian J Lopresti; Anders Wall; Pernilla Koivisto; Gunnar Antoni; Chester A Mathis; Bengt Långström Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Michael Navitsky; Abhinay D Joshi; Ian Kennedy; William E Klunk; Christopher C Rowe; Dean F Wong; Michael J Pontecorvo; Mark A Mintun; Michael D Devous Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Maria C Carrillo; Christopher C Rowe; Cassandra Szoeke; Colin L Masters; David Ames; Tim O'Meara; S Lance Macaulay; Andrew Milner; Kathryn A Ellis; Paul Maruff; Stephanie R Rainey-Smith; Ralph N Martins; Lisa J Bain; Richard J Head Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-12-23 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Christopher C Rowe; Vincent Doré; Gareth Jones; David Baxendale; Rachel S Mulligan; Santiago Bullich; Andrew W Stephens; Susan De Santi; Colin L Masters; Ludger Dinkelborg; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Dawn C Matthews; Ana S Lukic; Randolph D Andrews; Miles N Wernick; Stephen C Strother; Mark E Schmidt Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-07-08
Authors: Wagner S Brum; Marco Antônio de Bastiani; Andrei Bieger; Joseph Therriault; João P Ferrari-Souza; Andréa L Benedet; Paramita Saha-Chaudhuri; Diogo O Souza; Nicholas J Ashton; Henrik Zetterberg; Tharick A Pascoal; Thomas Karikari; Kaj Blennow; Pedro Rosa-Neto; Eduardo R Zimmer Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-03-13
Authors: Andréa L Benedet; Wagner S Brum; Oskar Hansson; Thomas K Karikari; Eduardo R Zimmer; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Nicholas J Ashton Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Hugh G Pemberton; Lyduine E Collij; Fiona Heeman; Ariane Bollack; Mahnaz Shekari; Gemma Salvadó; Isadora Lopes Alves; David Vallez Garcia; Mark Battle; Christopher Buckley; Andrew W Stephens; Santiago Bullich; Valentina Garibotto; Frederik Barkhof; Juan Domingo Gispert; Gill Farrar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kelsey R Thomas; Alexandra J Weigand; Lauren C Edwards; Emily C Edmonds; Katherine J Bangen; Gema Ortiz; Kayla S Walker; Mark W Bondi Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 8.823