Pierrick Bourgeat1, Vincent Doré2, Samantha C Burnham3, Tammie Benzinger4, Duygu Tosun5, Shenpeng Li3, Manu Goyal6, Pamela LaMontagne6, Liang Jin7, Christopher C Rowe8, Michael W Weiner5, John C Morris9, Colin L Masters7, Jurgen Fripp3, Victor L Villemagne10. 1. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: Pierrick.bourgeat@csiro.au. 2. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia; Department of Molecular Imaging & Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. 3. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA,; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, USA. 7. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Department of Molecular Imaging & Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia. 9. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 10. Department of Molecular Imaging & Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Psychiatry, The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Centiloid scale was developed to harmonise the quantification of β-amyloid (Aβ) PET images across tracers, scanners, and processing pipelines. However, several groups have reported differences across tracers and scanners even after centiloid conversion. In this study, we aim to evaluate the impact of different pre and post-processing harmonisation steps on the robustness of longitudinal Centiloid data across three large international cohort studies. METHODS: All Aβ PET data in AIBL (N = 3315), ADNI (N = 3442) and OASIS3 (N = 1398) were quantified using the MRI-based Centiloid standard SPM pipeline and the PET-only pipeline CapAIBL. SUVR were converted into Centiloids using each tracer's respective transform. Global Aβ burden from pre-defined target cortical regions in Centiloid units were quantified for both raw PET scans and PET scans smoothed to a uniform 8 mm full width half maximum (FWHM) effective smoothness. For Florbetapir, we assessed the performance of using both the standard Whole Cerebellum (WCb) and a composite white matter (WM)+WCb reference region. Additionally, our recently proposed quantification based on Non-negative Matrix Factorisation (NMF) was applied to all spatially and SUVR normalised images. Correlation with clinical severity measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and effect size, as well as tracer agreement in 11C-PiB-18F-Florbetapir pairs and longitudinal consistency were evaluated. RESULTS: The smoothing to a uniform resolution partially reduced longitudinal variability, but did not improve inter-tracer agreement, effect size or correlation with MMSE. Using a Composite reference region for 18F-Florbetapir improved inter-tracer agreement, effect size, correlation with MMSE, and longitudinal consistency. The best results were however obtained when using the NMF method which outperformed all other quantification approaches in all metrics used. CONCLUSIONS: FWHM smoothing has limited impact on longitudinal consistency or outliers. A Composite reference region including subcortical WM should be used for computing both cross-sectional and longitudinal Florbetapir Centiloid. NMF improves Centiloid quantification on all metrics examined.
INTRODUCTION: The Centiloid scale was developed to harmonise the quantification of β-amyloid (Aβ) PET images across tracers, scanners, and processing pipelines. However, several groups have reported differences across tracers and scanners even after centiloid conversion. In this study, we aim to evaluate the impact of different pre and post-processing harmonisation steps on the robustness of longitudinal Centiloid data across three large international cohort studies. METHODS: All Aβ PET data in AIBL (N = 3315), ADNI (N = 3442) and OASIS3 (N = 1398) were quantified using the MRI-based Centiloid standard SPM pipeline and the PET-only pipeline CapAIBL. SUVR were converted into Centiloids using each tracer's respective transform. Global Aβ burden from pre-defined target cortical regions in Centiloid units were quantified for both raw PET scans and PET scans smoothed to a uniform 8 mm full width half maximum (FWHM) effective smoothness. For Florbetapir, we assessed the performance of using both the standard Whole Cerebellum (WCb) and a composite white matter (WM)+WCb reference region. Additionally, our recently proposed quantification based on Non-negative Matrix Factorisation (NMF) was applied to all spatially and SUVR normalised images. Correlation with clinical severity measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and effect size, as well as tracer agreement in 11C-PiB-18F-Florbetapir pairs and longitudinal consistency were evaluated. RESULTS: The smoothing to a uniform resolution partially reduced longitudinal variability, but did not improve inter-tracer agreement, effect size or correlation with MMSE. Using a Composite reference region for 18F-Florbetapir improved inter-tracer agreement, effect size, correlation with MMSE, and longitudinal consistency. The best results were however obtained when using the NMF method which outperformed all other quantification approaches in all metrics used. CONCLUSIONS: FWHM smoothing has limited impact on longitudinal consistency or outliers. A Composite reference region including subcortical WM should be used for computing both cross-sectional and longitudinal Florbetapir Centiloid. NMF improves Centiloid quantification on all metrics examined.
Authors: Pierrick Bourgeat; Victor L Villemagne; Vincent Dore; Belinda Brown; S Lance Macaulay; Ralph Martins; Colin L Masters; David Ames; Kathryn Ellis; Christopher C Rowe; Olivier Salvado; Jurgen Fripp Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 4.673
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: Christopher G Schwarz; Jeffrey L Gunter; Val J Lowe; Stephen Weigand; Prashanthi Vemuri; Matthew L Senjem; Ronald C Petersen; David S Knopman; Clifford R Jack Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Francisco Javier López-González; Alexis Moscoso; Nikos Efthimiou; Anxo Fernández-Ferreiro; Manuel Piñeiro-Fiel; Stephen J Archibald; Pablo Aguiar; Jesús Silva-Rodríguez Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Bernard J Hanseeuw; Vincent Malotaux; Laurence Dricot; Lisa Quenon; Yves Sznajer; Jiri Cerman; John L Woodard; Christopher Buckley; Gill Farrar; Adrian Ivanoiu; Renaud Lhommel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sarah K Royse; Davneet S Minhas; Brian J Lopresti; Alice Murphy; Tyler Ward; Robert A Koeppe; Santiago Bullich; Susan DeSanti; William J Jagust; Susan M Landau Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 6.982
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: Yi Su; Shaney Flores; Russ C Hornbeck; Benjamin Speidel; Andrei G Vlassenko; Brian A Gordon; Robert A Koeppe; William E Klunk; Chengjie Xiong; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Antoine Leuzy; Johan Lilja; Christopher J Buckley; Rik Ossenkoppele; Sebastian Palmqvist; Mark Battle; Gill Farrar; Dietmar R Thal; Shorena Janelidze; Erik Stomrud; Olof Strandberg; Ruben Smith; Oskar Hansson Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Alexis Moscoso; Jesús Silva-Rodríguez; Jose Manuel Aldrey; Julia Cortés; Juan Manuel Pías-Peleteiro; Álvaro Ruibal; Pablo Aguiar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 9.236