Longitudinal amyloid and tau PET imaging in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review of methodologies and factors affecting quantification

Deposition of amyloid and tau pathology can be quantified in vivo using positron emission tomography (PET). Accurate longitudinal measurements of accumulation from these images are critical for characterizing the start and spread of the disease. However, these measurements are challenging; precision and accuracy can be affected substantially by various sources of errors and variability. This review, supported by a systematic search of the literature, summarizes the current design and methodologies of longitudinal PET studies. Intrinsic, biological causes of variability of the Alzheimer's disease (AD) protein load over time are then detailed. Technical factors contributing to longitudinal PET measurement uncertainty are highlighted, followed by suggestions for mitigating these factors, including possible techniques that leverage shared information between serial scans. Controlling for intrinsic variability and reducing measurement uncertainty in longitudinal PET pipelines will provide more accurate and precise markers of disease evolution, improve clinical trial design, and aid therapy response monitoring

Harmonization of brain PET images in multi-center PET studies using Hoffman phantom scan

Background: Image harmonization has been proposed to minimize heterogeneity in brain PET scans acquired in multi-center studies. However, standard validated methods and software tools are lacking. Here, we assessed the performance of a framework for the harmonization of brain PET scans in a multi-center European clinical trial. / Method: Hoffman 3D brain phantoms were acquired in 28 PET systems and reconstructed using site-specific settings. Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of the Effective Image Resolution (EIR) and harmonization kernels were estimated for each scan. The target EIR was selected as the coarsest EIR in the imaging network. Using “Hoffman 3D brain Analysis tool,” indicators of image quality were calculated before and after the harmonization: The Coefficient of Variance (COV%), Gray Matter Recovery Coefficient (GMRC), Contrast, Cold-Spot RC, and left-to-right GMRC ratio. A COV% ≤ 15% and Contrast ≥ 2.2 were set as acceptance criteria. The procedure was repeated to achieve a 6-mm target EIR in a subset of scans. The method’s robustness against typical dose-calibrator-based errors was assessed. / Results: The EIR across systems ranged from 3.3 to 8.1 mm, and an EIR of 8 mm was selected as the target resolution. After harmonization, all scans met acceptable image quality criteria, while only 13 (39.4%) did before. The harmonization procedure resulted in lower inter-system variability indicators: Mean ± SD COV% (from 16.97 ± 6.03 to 7.86 ± 1.47%), GMRC Inter-Quartile Range (0.040–0.012), and Contrast SD (0.14–0.05). Similar results were obtained with a 6-mm FWHM target EIR. Errors of ± 10% in the DRO activity resulted in differences below 1 mm in the estimated EIR. / Conclusion: Harmonizing the EIR of brain PET scans significantly reduced image quality variability while minimally affecting quantitative accuracy. This method can be used prospectively for harmonizing scans to target sharper resolutions and is robust against dose-calibrator errors. Comparable image quality is attainable in brain PET multi-center studies while maintaining quantitative accuracy

[11C]PIB amyloid quantification: effect of reference region selection

BACKGROUND: The standard reference region (RR) for amyloid-beta (Aβ) PET studies is the cerebellar grey matter (GMCB), while alternative RRs have mostly been utilized without prior validation against the gold standard. This study compared five commonly used RRs to gold standard plasma input-based quantification using the GMCB. METHODS: Thirteen subjects from a test-retest (TRT) study and 30 from a longitudinal study were retrospectively included (total: 17 Alzheimer's disease, 13 mild cognitive impairment, 13 controls). Dynamic [11C]PiB PET (90 min) and T1-weighted MR scans were co-registered and time-activity curves were extracted for cortical target regions and the following RRs: GMCB, whole cerebellum (WCB), white matter brainstem/pons (WMBS), whole brainstem (WBS) and eroded subcortical white matter (WMES). A two-tissue reversible plasma input model (2T4k_Vb) with GMCB as RR, reference Logan and the simplified reference tissue model were used to derive distribution volume ratios (DVRs), and standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios were calculated for 40-60 min and 60-90 min intervals. Parameter variability was evaluated using TRT scans, and correlations and agreements with the gold standard (DVR from 2T4k_Vb with GMCB RR) were also assessed. Next, longitudinal changes in SUVs (both intervals) were assessed for each RR. Finally, the ability to discriminate between visually Aβ positive and Aβ negative scans was assessed. RESULTS: All RRs yielded stable TRT performance (max 5.1% variability), with WCB consistently showing lower variability. All approaches were able to discriminate between Aβ positive and Aβ negative scans, with highest effect sizes obtained for GMCB (range - 0.9 to - 0.7), followed by WCB (range - 0.8 to - 0.6). Furthermore, all approaches provided good correlations with the gold standard (r ≥ 0.78), while the highest bias (as assessed by the regression slope) was observed using WMES (range slope 0.52-0.67), followed by WBS (range slope 0.58-0.92) and WMBS (range slope 0.62-0.91). Finally, RR SUVs were stable across a period of 2.6 years for all except WBS and WMBS RRs (60-90 min interval). CONCLUSIONS: GMCB and WCB are considered the best RRs for quantifying amyloid burden using [11C]PiB PET

Harmonizing genotype array data to understand genetic risk for brain amyloid burden in the AMYPAD PNHS Consortium

Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative, Grant/Award Number: No 115952; European Union’s Horizon 2020 research; innovation programme; GE Healthcare; Springer Healthcare; MSCA, Grant/Award Number: #101108819; Alzheimer Association Research Fellowship, Grant/Award Number: #23AARF-1029663; Spanish Research Agency, Grant/Award Numbers: MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, RYC2022-038136-I; European Union FSE+, Grant/Award Number: PID2022-143106OA-I00; European Union FEDER; Alzheimer’s Disease Data Initiative; 23S06083-001; Stichting Alzheimer Onderzoek; Internal Funds KU Leuven; Flemish Research Foundation, Grant/Award Numbers: G0G1519N, G094418N; VLAIO, Grant/Award Number: HBC.2019.2523; NIHR biomedical research centre.INTRODUCTION: We sought to harmonize genotype data from the predementia AMYPAD (Amyloid Imaging to Prevent Alzheimer's Disease) Consortium, compute polygenic risk scores (PRS), and determine their association with global amyloid deposition. METHODS: Genetic data from five AMYPAD parent cohorts were harmonized, and PRS were computed for Alzheimer's disease (AD) susceptibility, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta (Aβ)42, and CSF phosphorylated tau181. Cross-sectional amyloid (Centiloid [CL]) burden was available for all participants, and regression models determined if PRS were associated with CL burden. RESULTS: After harmonization, data for 867 participants showed that high CL burden was most strongly predicted by CSF Aβ42 PRS compared to traditional AD susceptibility PRS. DISCUSSION: This work emphasizes the importance of data harmonization and pooling of cohorts for large-powered studies. Findings suggest a genetic predisposition to amyloid pathology that may predispose individuals early in the AD continuum. This validates the potential use of PRS in clinical (trial) settings as a non-invasive tool to assess AD risk.Peer reviewe

Quantification of amyloid PET for future clinical use: a state-of-the-art review

Amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology is one of the earliest detectable brain changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. The overall load and spatial distribution of brain Aβ can be determined in vivo using positron emission tomography (PET), for which three fluorine-18 labelled radiotracers have been approved for clinical use. In clinical practice, trained readers will categorise scans as either Aβ positive or negative, based on visual inspection. Diagnostic decisions are often based on these reads and patient selection for clinical trials is increasingly guided by amyloid status. However, tracer deposition in the grey matter as a function of amyloid load is an inherently continuous process, which is not sufficiently appreciated through binary cut-offs alone. State-of-the-art methods for amyloid PET quantification can generate tracer-independent measures of Aβ burden. Recent research has shown the ability of these quantitative measures to highlight pathological changes at the earliest stages of the AD continuum and generate more sensitive thresholds, as well as improving diagnostic confidence around established binary cut-offs. With the recent FDA approval of aducanumab and more candidate drugs on the horizon, early identification of amyloid burden using quantitative measures is critical for enrolling appropriate subjects to help establish the optimal window for therapeutic intervention and secondary prevention. In addition, quantitative amyloid measurements are used for treatment response monitoring in clinical trials. In clinical settings, large multi-centre studies have shown that amyloid PET results change both diagnosis and patient management and that quantification can accurately predict rates of cognitive decline. Whether these changes in management reflect an improvement in clinical outcomes is yet to be determined and further validation work is required to establish the utility of quantification for supporting treatment endpoint decisions. In this state-of-the-art review, several tools and measures available for amyloid PET quantification are summarised and discussed. Use of these methods is growing both clinically and in the research domain. Concurrently, there is a duty of care to the wider dementia community to increase visibility and understanding of these methods

Stress testing the Centiloid: Precision and variability of PET quantification of amyloid pathology

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the potential sources of bias and variability of the Centiloid (CL) scale is fundamental for its appropriate clinical application. // METHODS: We included 533 participants from AMYloid imaging to Prevent Alzheimer's Disease (AMYPAD DPMS) and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohorts. Thirty-two CL pipelines were created using different combinations of reference region (RR), RR and target types, and quantification spaces. Generalized estimating equations stratified by amyloid positivity were used to assess the impact of the quantification pipeline, radiotracer, age, brain atrophy, and harmonization status on CL. // RESULTS: RR selection and RR type impact CL the most, particularly in amyloid-negative individuals. The standard CL pipeline with the whole cerebellum as RR is robust against brain atrophy and differences in image resolution, with 95% confidence intervals below ± 3.95 CL for amyloid beta positivity cutoffs (CL < 24). // DISCUSSION: The standard CL pipeline is recommended for most scenarios. Confidence intervals should be considered when operationalizing CL cutoffs in clinical and research settings

Visual assessment of [¹⁸F]flutemetamol PET images can detect early amyloid pathology and grade its extent

PURPOSE: To investigate the sensitivity of visual read (VR) to detect early amyloid pathology and the overall utility of regional VR. METHODS: [¹⁸F]flutemetamol PET images of 497 subjects (ALFA+ N = 352; ADC N = 145) were included. Scans were visually assessed according to product guidelines, recording the number of positive regions (0-5) and a final negative/positive classification. Scans were quantified using the standard and regional Centiloid (CL) method. The agreement between VR-based classification and published CL-based cut-offs for early (CL = 12) and established (CL = 30) pathology was determined. An optimal CL cut-off maximizing Youden's index was derived. Global and regional CL quantification was compared to VR. Finally, 28 post-mortem cases from the [¹⁸F]flutemetamol phase III trial were included to assess the percentage agreement between VR and neuropathological classification of neuritic plaque density. RESULTS: VR showed excellent agreement against CL = 12 (κ = .89, 95.2%) and CL = 30 (κ = .88, 95.4%) cut-offs. ROC analysis resulted in an optimal CL = 17 cut-off against VR (sensitivity = 97.9%, specificity = 97.8%). Each additional positive VR region corresponded to a clear increase in global CL. Regional VR was also associated with regional CL quantification. Compared to mCERAD_{SOT}-based classification (i.e., any region mCERAD_{SOT} > 1.5), VR was in agreement in 89.3% of cases, with 13 true negatives, 12 true positives, and 3 false positives (FP). Regional sparse-to-moderate neuritic and substantial diffuse Aβ plaque was observed in all FP cases. Regional VR was also associated with regional plaque density. CONCLUSION: VR is an appropriate method for assessing early amyloid pathology and that grading the extent of visual amyloid positivity could present clinical value

Centiloid recommendations for clinical context-of-use from the AMYPAD consortium

Amyloid-PET quantification through the tracer-independent Centiloid (CL) scale has emerged as an essential tool for the accurate measurement of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. The AMYPAD consortium set out to integrate existing literature and recent work from the consortium to provide clinical context-of-use recommendations for the CL scale. Compared to histopathology, visual reads, and cerebrospinal fluid, CL quantification accurately reflects the amount of AD pathology. With high certainty, a CL value below 10 excludes the presence of Aβ pathology, while a value above 30 corresponds well with pathological amounts. Values falling in between these two cutoffs ("intermediate range") are related to an increased risk of disease progression. Together, CL quantification is a valuable adjunct to visual assessments of amyloid-PET images. An abnormal amyloid biomarker assessment is a key criterion to determine eligibility for anti-amyloid disease-modifying therapies, and amyloid-PET quantification can add further value by precisely monitoring amyloid clearance, and hence guiding patient management decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Centiloid (CL) quantification robustly reflects of the amount of Aβ pathology. CL  30 reflects Aβ-negativity/positivity thresholds with high certainty. CL quantification is a valuable adjunct to visual assessments of amyloid-PET. CL quantification can support trial design and treatment management. CL quantification could support the identification of early or emerging Aβ pathology

Impact of cerebral blood flow and amyloid load on SUVR bias

BACKGROUND: Despite its widespread use, the semi-quantitative standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) may be biased compared with the distribution volume ratio (DVR). This bias may be partially explained by changes in cerebral blood flow (CBF) and is likely to be also dependent on the extent of the underlying amyloid-β (Aβ) burden. This study aimed to compare SUVR with DVR and to evaluate the effects of underlying Aβ burden and CBF on bias in SUVR in mainly cognitively unimpaired participants. Participants were scanned according to a dual-time window protocol, with either [18F]flutemetamol (N = 90) or [18F]florbetaben (N = 31). The validated basisfunction-based implementation of the two-step simplified reference tissue model was used to derive DVR and R1 parametric images, and SUVR was calculated from 90 to 110 min post-injection, all with the cerebellar grey matter as reference tissue. First, linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses were used to compare (regional) SUVR with DVR. Then, generalized linear models were applied to evaluate whether (bias in) SUVR relative to DVR could be explained by R1 for the global cortical average (GCA), precuneus, posterior cingulate, and orbitofrontal region. RESULTS: Despite high correlations (GCA: R2 ≥ 0.85), large overestimation and proportional bias of SUVR relative to DVR was observed. Negative associations were observed between both SUVR or SUVRbias and R1, albeit non-significant. CONCLUSION: The present findings demonstrate that bias in SUVR relative to DVR is strongly related to underlying Aβ burden. Furthermore, in a cohort consisting mainly of cognitively unimpaired individuals, the effect of relative CBF on bias in SUVR appears limited. EudraCT Number: 2018-002277-22, registered on: 25-06-2018

Impact of simulated reduced injected dose on the assessment of amyloid PET scans

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of reduced injected doses on the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the amyloid PET tracers [18F]flutemetamol and [18F]florbetaben. METHODS: Cognitively impaired and unimpaired individuals (N = 250, 36% Aβ-positive) were included and injected with [18F]flutemetamol (N = 175) or [18F]florbetaben (N = 75). PET scans were acquired in list-mode (90-110 min post-injection) and reduced-dose images were simulated to generate images of 75, 50, 25, 12.5 and 5% of the original injected dose. Images were reconstructed using vendor-provided reconstruction tools and visually assessed for Aβ-pathology. SUVRs were calculated for a global cortical and three smaller regions using a cerebellar cortex reference tissue, and Centiloid was computed. Absolute and percentage differences in SUVR and CL were calculated between dose levels, and the ability to discriminate between Aβ- and Aβ + scans was evaluated using ROC analyses. Finally, intra-reader agreement between the reduced dose and 100% images was evaluated. RESULTS: At 5% injected dose, change in SUVR was 3.72% and 3.12%, with absolute change in Centiloid 3.35CL and 4.62CL, for [18F]flutemetamol and [18F]florbetaben, respectively. At 12.5% injected dose, percentage change in SUVR and absolute change in Centiloid were  80% for both tracers. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study showed that for both [18F]flutemetamol and [18F]florbetaben, adequate quantitative and qualitative assessments can be obtained at 12.5% of the original injected dose. However, decisions to reduce the injected dose should be made considering the specific clinical or research circumstances