Where Should I Draw the Line: PET-Driven, Data-Driven, or Manufacturer Cut-Off?

Background

The optimal cut-off for Alzheimer's disease (AD) CSF biomarkers remains controversial.

Objective

To analyze the performance of cut-off points standardized by three methods: one that optimized the agreement between 11C-Pittsburgh compound B PET (a-PET) and CSF biomarkers (Aβ1-42, pTau, tTau, and Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 ratio) in our population, called PET-driven; an unbiased cut-off using data from a healthy research cohort, called data-driven, and that provided by the manufacturer. We also compare changes in ATN classification.

Methods

CSF biomarkers measured by the LUMIPULSE G600II platform and qualitative visualization of amyloid positron emission tomography (a-PET) were performed in all the patients. We established a cut-off for each single biomarker and Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 ratio that optimized their agreement with a-PET using ROC curves. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Overall Percent of Agreement are assessed using a-PET or clinical diagnosis as gold standard for every cut-off. Also, we established a data-driven cut-off from our cognitively unimpaired cohort. We then analyzed changes in ATN classification.

Results

One hundred and ten patients were recruited. Sixty-six (60%) were a-PET positive. PET-driven cut-offs were: pTau > 57, tTau > 362.62, Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 < 0.069. For a single biomarker, pTau showed the highest accuracy (AUC 0.926). New PET-driven cut-offs classified patients similarly to manufacturer cut-offs (only two patients changed). However, 20 patients (18%) changed when data-driven cut-offs were used.

Conclusions

We established our sample's best CSF biomarkers cut-offs using a-PET as the gold standard. These cut-offs categorize better symptomatic subjects than data-driven in ATN classification, but they are very similar to the manufacturer's.