Fabio Raman1,2,3,4, Yu-Hua Dean Fang1, Sameera Grandhi1,2, Charles F Murchison2,5, Richard E Kennedy2,3, John C Morris6, Parinaz Massoumzadeh7, Tammie Benzinger7, Erik D Roberson2,3,4, Jonathan McConathy8,2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 2. Alzheimer's Disease Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 4. Center for Neurodegeneration and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 6. Department of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and. 7. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 8. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; jmcconathy@uabmc.edu.
Abstract
Measuring amyloid and predicting tau status using a single amyloid PET study would be valuable for assessing brain AD pathophysiology. We hypothesized that early-frame amyloid PET (efAP) correlates with the presence of tau pathology because the initial regional brain concentrations of radioactivity are determined primarily by blood flow, which is expected to be decreased in the setting of tau pathology. Methods: The study included 120 participants (63 amyloid-positive and 57 amyloid-negative) with dynamic 18F-florbetapir PET and static 18F-flortaucipir PET scans obtained within 6 mo of each other. These subjects were predominantly cognitively intact in both the amyloid-positive (63%) and the amyloid-negative (93%) groups. Parameters for efAP quantification were optimized for stratification of tau PET positivity, assessed by either a tauopathy score or Braak regions. The ability of efAP to stratify tau positivity was measured using receiver-operating-characteristic analysis of area under the curve (AUC). Pearson r and Spearman ρ were used for parametric and nonparametric comparisons between efAP and tau PET, respectively. Standardized net benefit was used to evaluate improvement in using efAP as an additional copredictor over hippocampal volume in predicting tau PET positivity. Results: Measuring efAP within the hippocampus and summing the first 3 min of brain activity after injection showed the strongest discriminative ability to stratify for tau positivity (AUC, 0.67-0.89 across tau PET Braak regions) in amyloid-positive individuals. Hippocampal efAP correlated significantly with a global tau PET tauopathy score in amyloid-positive participants (r = -0.57, P < 0.0001). Compared with hippocampal volume, hippocampal efAP showed a stronger association with tau PET Braak stage (ρ = -0.58 vs. -0.37) and superior stratification of tau PET tauopathy score (AUC, 0.86 vs. 0.66; P = 0.002). Conclusion: Hippocampal efAP can provide additional information to conventional amyloid PET, including estimation of the likelihood of tau positivity in amyloid-positive individuals.
Measuring amyloid and predicting tau status using a single amyloid PET study would be valuable for assessing brain AD pathophysiology. We hypothesized that early-frame amyloid PET (efAP) correlates with the presence of tau pathology because the initial regional brain concentrations of radioactivity are determined primarily by blood flow, which is expected to be decreased in the setting of tau pathology. Methods: The study included 120 participants (63 amyloid-positive and 57 amyloid-negative) with dynamic 18F-florbetapir PET and static 18F-flortaucipir PET scans obtained within 6 mo of each other. These subjects were predominantly cognitively intact in both the amyloid-positive (63%) and the amyloid-negative (93%) groups. Parameters for efAP quantification were optimized for stratification of tau PET positivity, assessed by either a tauopathy score or Braak regions. The ability of efAP to stratify tau positivity was measured using receiver-operating-characteristic analysis of area under the curve (AUC). Pearson r and Spearman ρ were used for parametric and nonparametric comparisons between efAP and tau PET, respectively. Standardized net benefit was used to evaluate improvement in using efAP as an additional copredictor over hippocampal volume in predicting tau PET positivity. Results: Measuring efAP within the hippocampus and summing the first 3 min of brain activity after injection showed the strongest discriminative ability to stratify for tau positivity (AUC, 0.67-0.89 across tau PET Braak regions) in amyloid-positive individuals. Hippocampal efAP correlated significantly with a global tau PET tauopathy score in amyloid-positive participants (r = -0.57, P < 0.0001). Compared with hippocampal volume, hippocampal efAP showed a stronger association with tau PET Braak stage (ρ = -0.58 vs. -0.37) and superior stratification of tau PET tauopathy score (AUC, 0.86 vs. 0.66; P = 0.002). Conclusion: Hippocampal efAP can provide additional information to conventional amyloid PET, including estimation of the likelihood of tau positivity in amyloid-positive individuals.
Authors: Elena Rodriguez-Vieitez; Stephen F Carter; Konstantinos Chiotis; Laure Saint-Aubert; Antoine Leuzy; Michael Schöll; Ove Almkvist; Anders Wall; Bengt Långström; Agneta Nordberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Schöll; Samuel N Lockhart; Daniel R Schonhaut; James P O'Neil; Mustafa Janabi; Rik Ossenkoppele; Suzanne L Baker; Jacob W Vogel; Jamie Faria; Henry D Schwimmer; Gil D Rabinovici; William J Jagust Journal: Neuron Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Alessandra Dodich; Aline Mendes; Frédéric Assal; Christian Chicherio; Barinjaka Rakotomiaramanana; Paulina Andryszak; Cristina Festari; Federica Ribaldi; Max Scheffler; Roger Schibli; Adam J Schwarz; Dina Zekry; Karl-Olof Lövblad; Marina Boccardi; Paul G Unschuld; Gabriel Gold; Giovanni B Frisoni; Valentina Garibotto Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lorenzo Pini; Michela Pievani; Martina Bocchetta; Daniele Altomare; Paolo Bosco; Enrica Cavedo; Samantha Galluzzi; Moira Marizzoni; Giovanni B Frisoni Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Yi Su; Shaney Flores; Guoqiao Wang; Russ C Hornbeck; Benjamin Speidel; Nelly Joseph-Mathurin; Andrei G Vlassenko; Brian A Gordon; Robert A Koeppe; William E Klunk; Clifford R Jack; Martin R Farlow; Stephen Salloway; Barbara J Snider; Sarah B Berman; Erik D Roberson; Jared Brosch; Ivonne Jimenez-Velazques; Christopher H van Dyck; Douglas Galasko; Shauna H Yuan; Suman Jayadev; Lawrence S Honig; Serge Gauthier; Ging-Yuek R Hsiung; Mario Masellis; William S Brooks; Michael Fulham; Roger Clarnette; Colin L Masters; David Wallon; Didier Hannequin; Bruno Dubois; Jeremie Pariente; Raquel Sanchez-Valle; Catherine Mummery; John M Ringman; Michel Bottlaender; Gregory Klein; Smiljana Milosavljevic-Ristic; Eric McDade; Chengjie Xiong; John C Morris; Randall J Bateman; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2019-02-22
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