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

Alzheimer's disease age amyloid PET accuracy biomarker validation brain atrophy clinical applications clinical trials context of use diagnosis disease‐modifying therapies image harmonization radiotracers white matter

Journal

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association
ISSN: 1552-5279
Titre abrégé: Alzheimers Dement
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231978

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 Jul 2024
Historique:
revised: 21 03 2024
received: 05 10 2023
accepted: 22 03 2024
medline: 4 7 2024
pubmed: 4 7 2024
entrez: 4 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Assessing the potential sources of bias and variability of the Centiloid (CL) scale is fundamental for its appropriate clinical application. 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. 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). The standard CL pipeline is recommended for most scenarios. Confidence intervals should be considered when operationalizing CL cutoffs in clinical and research settings. We developed a framework for evaluating Centiloid (CL) variability to different factors. Reference region selection and delineation had the highest impact on CL values. Whole cerebellum (WCB) and whole cerebellum plus brainstem (WCB+BSTM) as reference regions yielded consistent results across tracers. The standard CL pipeline is robust against atrophy and image resolution variation. Estimated within- and between-pipeline variability (95% confidence interval) in absolute CL units.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38961808
doi: 10.1002/alz.13883
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking
ID : 115952
Organisme : European Union's Horizon 2020
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : U01 AG024904
Pays : United States
Organisme : Department of Defense
ID : W81XWH-12-2-0012
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
Pays : United States
Organisme : AbbVie
Organisme : Alzheimer's Association
Pays : United States
Organisme : Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
Organisme : Araclon Biotech
Organisme : BioClinica, Inc.
Organisme : Biogen
Organisme : Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Organisme : CereSpir, Inc.
Organisme : Cogstate
Organisme : Eisai Inc.
Organisme : Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Organisme : Eli Lilly and Company
Organisme : EuroImmun
Organisme : F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
Organisme : Genentech, Inc.
Organisme : Fujirebio
Organisme : GE Healthcare
Organisme : IXICO Ltd.
Organisme : Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC
Organisme : Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC
Organisme : Lumosity
Organisme : Lundbeck
Organisme : Merck & Co., Inc.
Organisme : Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC
Organisme : NeuroRx Research
Organisme : Neurotrack Technologies
Organisme : Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Organisme : Pfizer Inc.
Organisme : Piramal Imaging
Organisme : Servier
Organisme : Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Organisme : Transition Therapeutics
Organisme : CIHR
Pays : Canada

Informations de copyright

© None The Author(s). Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.

Références

Pemberton HG, Collij LE, Heeman F, et al. Quantification of amyloid PET for future clinical use: a state‐of‐the‐art review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(10):3508‐3528.
Schmidt ME, Chiao P, Klein G, et al. The influence of biological and technical factors on quantitative analysis of amyloid PET: points to consider and recommendations for controlling variability in longitudinal data. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11(9):1050‐1068.
Klunk WE, Koeppe RA, Price JC, et al. The Centiloid Project: standardizing quantitative amyloid plaque estimation by PET. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11(1):1‐15.e4.
Amadoru S, Doré V, McLean CA, et al. Comparison of amyloid PET measured in Centiloid units with neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020;12(1):22.
La Joie R, Ayakta N, Seeley WW, et al. Multisite study of the relationships between antemortem [11C] PIB‐PET Centiloid values and postmortem measures of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;15(2):205‐216.
Salvadó G, Molinuevo JL, Brugulat‐Serrat A, et al. Centiloid cut‐off values for optimal agreement between PET and CSF core AD biomarkers. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2019;11(1):1‐12.
Hardy J, Mummery C. An anti‐amyloid therapy works for Alzheimer's disease: why has it taken so long and what is next? Brain. 2023;146(4):1240‐1242.
FDA. Table of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug Approval or Licensure. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development‐resources/table‐surrogate‐endpoints‐were‐basis‐drug‐approval‐or‐licensure
Sims JR, Zimmer JA, Evans CD, et al. Donanemab in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease: the TRAILBLAZER‐ALZ 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330(6):512‐527.
Aisen PS, Zhou J, Irizarry MC, et al. AHEAD 3‐45 study design: a global study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with BAN2401 for 216 weeks in preclinical Alzheimer's disease with intermediate amyloid (A3 trial) and elevated amyloid (A45 trial) Clinical trial design and implementation. Alzheimers Dement. 2020;16:e044511.
Frisoni GB, Barkhof F, Altomare D, et al. AMYPAD diagnostic and patient management study: rationale and design. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;15(3):388‐399.
Shekari M, Verwer EE, Yaqub M, et al. Harmonization of brain PET images in multi‐center PET studies using Hoffman Phantom Scan. EJNMMI Phys. 2023;10(1):68.
Joshi A, Koeppe RA, Fessler JA. Reducing between scanner differences in multi‐center PET studies. Neuroimage. 2009;46(1):154‐159.
Petersen RC, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, et al. Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): clinical characterization. Neurology. 2010;74(3):201‐209.
Navitsky M, Joshi AD, Kennedy I, et al. Standardization of amyloid quantitation with florbetapir standardized uptake value ratios to the Centiloid scale. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(12):1565‐1571.
Battle MR, Pillay LC, Lowe VJ, et al. Centiloid scaling for quantification of brain amyloid with [18F] flutemetamol using multiple processing methods. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8(1):1‐11.
Bollack A, Pemberton HG, Collij LE, et al. Longitudinal amyloid and tau PET imaging in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of methodologies and factors affecting quantification. Alzheimers Dement. 2023;19(11):5232‐5252.
Lowe VJ, Lundt ES, Senjem ML, et al. White matter reference region in PET studies of 11C‐Pittsburgh compound B uptake: effects of age and amyloid‐β deposition. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(10):1583‐1589.
Zeydan B, Schwarz CG, Przybelski SA, et al. Comparison of 11C‐Pittsburgh Compound B and 18F‐Flutemetamol White Matter Binding in PET. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(8):1239‐1244.
Su Y, Flores S, Hornbeck RC, et al. Utilizing the Centiloid scale in cross‐sectional and longitudinal PiB PET studies. NeuroImage Clinl. 2018;19:406‐416.
Bourgeat P, Doré V, Fripp J, et al. Implementing the centiloid transformation for 11C‐PiB and β‐amyloid 18F‐PET tracers using CapAIBL. Neuroimage. 2018;183:387‐393.
Schwarz CG, Tosakulwong N, Senjem ML, et al. Considerations for performing level‐2 centiloid transformations for amyloid PET SUVR values. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):7421.
Gispert JD, Vállez García D, Collij LE, et al. P059‐ stress‐testing the centiloid concept: validation of the between‐tracer accuracy of the centiloid method in an independent cohort. JPAD. 2023;(supp. 109):10.
Jovalekic A, Roé‐Vellvé N, Koglin N, et al. Validation of quantitative assessment of florbetaben PET scans as an adjunct to the visual assessment across 15 software methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50(11):3276‐3289.
Qualification opinion for Centiloid measure of Amyloid PET to quantify brain amyloid deposition. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human‐regulatory‐overview/research‐development/scientific‐advice‐protocol‐assistance/opinions‐letters‐support‐qualification‐novel‐methodologies‐medicine‐development

Auteurs

Mahnaz Shekari (M)

Barcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.

David Vállez García (D)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Lyduine E Collij (LE)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Clinical Memory Research Unit, Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.

Daniele Altomare (D)

Memory Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland.

Fiona Heeman (F)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Gothenburg, The University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Hugh Pemberton (H)

GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Amersham, UK.
Institute of Neurology and Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK.

Núria Roé Vellvé (N)

Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, Berlin, Germany.

Santiago Bullich (S)

Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, Berlin, Germany.

Christopher Buckley (C)

GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Amersham, UK.

Andrew Stephens (A)

Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, Berlin, Germany.

Gill Farrar (G)

GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Amersham, UK.

Giovanni Frisoni (G)

Memory Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland.

William E Klunk (WE)

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Frederik Barkhof (F)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Institute of Neurology and Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK.

Juan Domingo Gispert (JD)

Barcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Bioingeniería, Biomateriales y Nanomedicina, (CIBER-BBN), Madrid, Spain.

Classifications MeSH