Head-to-Head Comparison of 18F-Florbetaben and 18F-Flutemetamol in the Cortical and Striatal Regions.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Alzheimer Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Aniline Compounds
/ metabolism
Benzothiazoles
/ metabolism
Cerebral Cortex
/ diagnostic imaging
Cognitive Dysfunction
/ diagnostic imaging
Corpus Striatum
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Fluorine Radioisotopes
/ metabolism
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Positron-Emission Tomography
/ methods
Stilbenes
/ metabolism
18F-florbetaben
18F-flutemetamol
Alzheimer’s disease
amyloid imaging
head to head
Journal
Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD
ISSN: 1875-8908
Titre abrégé: J Alzheimers Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9814863
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
pubmed:
1
6
2020
medline:
8
5
2021
entrez:
1
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
18F-florbetaben (FBB) and 18F-flutemetamol (FMM) amyloid PET have been developed and approved for clinical use. It is important to understand the distinct features of these ligands to compare and correctly interpret the results of different amyloid PET studies. We performed a head-to-head comparison of FBB and FMM to compare with regard to imaging characteristics, including dynamic range of retention, and differences in quantitative measurements between the two ligands in cortical, striatal, and white matter (WM) regions. Paired FBB and FMM PET images were acquired in 107 participants. Correlations of FBB and FMM amyloid deposition in the cortex, striatum, and WM were investigated and compared in different reference regions (cerebellar gray matter (CG), whole cerebellum (WC), WC with brainstem (WC + B), and pons). The cortical SUVR (R2 = 0.97) and striatal SUVR (R2 = 0.95) demonstrated an excellent linear correlation between FBB and FMM using a WC as reference region. There was no difference in the cortical SUVR ratio between the two ligands (p = 0.90), but the striatal SUVR ratio was higher in FMM than in FBB (p < 0.001). Also, the effect size of differences in striatal SUVR seemed to be higher with FMM (2.61) than with FBB (2.34). These trends were similarly observed according to four different reference regions (CG, WC, WC + B, and pons). Our findings suggest that FMM might be better than FBB to detect amyloid burden in the striatum, although both ligands are comparable for imaging AD pathology in vivo.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
18F-florbetaben (FBB) and 18F-flutemetamol (FMM) amyloid PET have been developed and approved for clinical use. It is important to understand the distinct features of these ligands to compare and correctly interpret the results of different amyloid PET studies.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a head-to-head comparison of FBB and FMM to compare with regard to imaging characteristics, including dynamic range of retention, and differences in quantitative measurements between the two ligands in cortical, striatal, and white matter (WM) regions.
METHODS
Paired FBB and FMM PET images were acquired in 107 participants. Correlations of FBB and FMM amyloid deposition in the cortex, striatum, and WM were investigated and compared in different reference regions (cerebellar gray matter (CG), whole cerebellum (WC), WC with brainstem (WC + B), and pons).
RESULTS
The cortical SUVR (R2 = 0.97) and striatal SUVR (R2 = 0.95) demonstrated an excellent linear correlation between FBB and FMM using a WC as reference region. There was no difference in the cortical SUVR ratio between the two ligands (p = 0.90), but the striatal SUVR ratio was higher in FMM than in FBB (p < 0.001). Also, the effect size of differences in striatal SUVR seemed to be higher with FMM (2.61) than with FBB (2.34). These trends were similarly observed according to four different reference regions (CG, WC, WC + B, and pons).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that FMM might be better than FBB to detect amyloid burden in the striatum, although both ligands are comparable for imaging AD pathology in vivo.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32474468
pii: JAD200079
doi: 10.3233/JAD-200079
pmc: PMC9711935
mid: NIHMS1850119
doi:
Substances chimiques
Aniline Compounds
0
Benzothiazoles
0
Fluorine Radioisotopes
0
Stilbenes
0
flutemetamol
0F3M7032P5
Fluorine-18
GZ5I74KB8G
4-(N-methylamino)-4'-(2-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)ethoxy)ethoxy)stilbene
TLA7312TOI
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
281-290Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P30 AG049638
Pays : United States
Références
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Feb;7(2):129-35
pubmed: 18191617
Alzheimers Dement. 2015 Sep;11(9):1050-68
pubmed: 25457431
J Nucl Med. 2013 Jan;54(1):70-7
pubmed: 23166389
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Dec;45(13):2368-2376
pubmed: 29980831
Neuroimage. 2002 Jan;15(1):273-89
pubmed: 11771995
J Nucl Med. 2009 Aug;50(8):1251-9
pubmed: 19617318
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1990 May;49(3):215-24
pubmed: 1692337
Neurology. 2017 Nov 14;89(20):2031-2038
pubmed: 29046362
Lancet Neurol. 2011 May;10(5):424-35
pubmed: 21481640
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jun;39(6):983-9
pubmed: 22398958
J Alzheimers Dis. 2016 Mar 31;52(3):863-73
pubmed: 27031469
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jun;46(6):1287-1298
pubmed: 30937462
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 24;11(3):e0152082
pubmed: 27010959
Alzheimers Dement. 2011 May;7(3):263-9
pubmed: 21514250
J Neurosci. 2003 Mar 15;23(6):2086-92
pubmed: 12657667
Neurobiol Aging. 2014 Jan;35(1):254-60
pubmed: 23932881
Alzheimers Dement. 2015 Jan;11(1):1-15.e1-4
pubmed: 25443857
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011 Apr;113(3):181-7
pubmed: 21122980
Alzheimers Dement. 2015 Aug;11(8):975-85
pubmed: 26141264
J Nucl Med. 2010 Jun;51(6):913-20
pubmed: 20501908
J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;28(4):869-76
pubmed: 22112552
Arch Neurol. 1999 Mar;56(3):303-8
pubmed: 10190820
Acta Neuropathol. 2018 Oct;136(4):557-567
pubmed: 30123935
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Jul;47(8):1971-1983
pubmed: 31884562
Ann Neurol. 2010 Sep;68(3):319-29
pubmed: 20687209
Semin Nucl Med. 2012 Nov;42(6):423-32
pubmed: 23026364
Neuroimage Clin. 2016 Nov 11;13:130-137
pubmed: 27981028
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1997 Dec;56(12):1363-70
pubmed: 9413285
Neuroimage Clin. 2015 Oct 14;9:592-8
pubmed: 26640770
Neurobiol Aging. 2012 May;33(5):878-85
pubmed: 20961664
Dement Neurocogn Disord. 2019 Sep;18(3):77-95
pubmed: 31681443
Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Oct;14(10):1281-1292
pubmed: 29792874
Brain. 2016 Sep;139(Pt 9):2516-27
pubmed: 27329772
Neurology. 2002 Jun 25;58(12):1791-800
pubmed: 12084879
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2018 Jun 23;10(1):60
pubmed: 29935545
J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;66(2):681-691
pubmed: 30320571
Ann Neurol. 2004 Mar;55(3):306-19
pubmed: 14991808